1

Sound Writing:The Lexical Preservation of Speech in Richard Mulcaster and William Shakespeare

Sophie Pattison

The Sandler Critical Essay Contest

2

Sound Writing:The Lexical Preservation of Speech in Richard Mulcaster and William Shakespeare

In the 21st Century, the sonnets of William Shakespeare are widely accepted as an

eloquent and monumental piece of English literature. In fact, an anthology of English literature

which does not include Shakespeare’s sonnets is likely to be criticized for incompleteness.

There is no question that Shakespeare’s sonnets are a classic part of the literature cannon.

However, the sonnets have yet to be examined through the lens of Richard Mulcaster’s

Elementarie (1582). While there is much evidence to indicate that most poetry would have been

read aloud in Shakespeare’s time, without the influence of Mulcaster it would be unclear to most

readers that Shakespeare’s Sonnets are not simply prettier when read aloud, but were written

with the express purpose of being read aloud. There is evidence that both Mulcaster and

Shakespeare believed in the power of writing to preserve speech. Because it is clear that the

words of Shakespeare’s Sonnets preserve speech, the sonnets must be read aloud in order for the

breath of the reader to poetically preserve the life of the sonnets and the friend immortalized in

them. It is only through Mulcaster that this additional layer to the sonnets becomes evident.

In the late 16th Century, English is only just beginning to be seen as a language of

eloquence capable of authority and stable enough to give ideas and arguments the immortality so

desired by their authors. The refining of English continued throughout the Renaissance, but was

not solidified until much later. In the 16th Century, English, as a vernacular, is characterized by

much changeability, which resulted from its lack of a standardized spelling or grammar. The

Scholastic philosophers, to whom the most important aspect of language was logic, argued that

language achieved logic by being forced into strict and standardized rules of grammar. Because

these standardized aspects were required by the Scholastics in order for a language to be deemed

3

capable of logic, English, with its lack of standardization and any semblance of a grammatical

system, was considered to be “rude, gross, barbarous, base, vile” (Jones, 7). While Richard

Jones explains that these words do not convey the strength of negativity that they would today,

what they do convey is a general sense of ineloquence. Without eloquence English was

incapable of gaining the authority it needed to become a language capable of permanence. The

vernacular for any region is by definition the natural source of oral / aural communication for

any particular group of people. Because cultures develop and change with time, it is necessary

that language develops to reflect those changes. If new concepts or ideas arise with a culture,

language will have to adjust to fit those new things. In a predominantly spoken language, it is

hard to maintain an obvious stability and commonality when new words are introduced.

In the period up to and during the Renaissance in England, Latin was considered to be the

only language of learning, logic and eloquence, and thus the only language stable enough to

make an author’s work immortal. The Scholastic reasoning indicated that a language of logic

had to be based on specific rules of grammar in order to be capable of authoritative statements.

Contemporary critic Richard Waswo refers to this as a cosmetic view of language. By cosmetic

Waswo means that words simply act as a sort of “clothing” for ideas and objects that already

exist (60). Latin existed in a clearly defined system of grammar and spelling that had been set

out by the classical rhetoricians, and thus was approved for use in important, scholarly writing.

Furthermore, because Latin is a non-spoken language, it did not suffer from the changing and

eroding effects of time that the vernacular did before it was standardized. In 16th Century

England, Latin was the only language which had a solidified spelling and grammar. Judith

Anderson explains that the use of Latin in written works contributes to “their authority and

monumentality, their status not only as things but also as fixed and frozen things” (43). Because

4

Latin is “fixed and frozen” it was considered unchangeable, and thus longer lasting and more

authoritative. This was the reason Latin was used over English for works that required

eloquence and authority. As Anderson also points out, Latin is still a language of authority

indicating “learning, tradition, even logic, and it conveys an authority that most English

equivalents would lack” (43). Indeed, Latin has not lost its authority, and it is not the purpose of

this paper to question the authority of Latin, but instead to examine the transference of a new

kind of authority to English.

In the 15th Century, the humanists began to contradict the Scholastic ideas about what

makes language the most effective. While the critic Martin Elsky suggests that the dichotomy

between the humanist and the Scholastic thoughts about language is not as strict as it seems (9), I

would argue that there is a direct contradiction between the two ideas on how language is able to

be meaningful. The Scholastics argue that it is only through strict grammar that logic and

meaning can be achieved. The new claim, put forth by 15th Century humanists Juan Luis Vives

(Spanish) and Desiderius Erasmus (Dutch) was that “usage precedes and determines grammatical

and logical rules, not vice versa” (Elsky, 37). In other words, it is through the use of the

language, and not a superimposed grammatical system, that language acquires logic and

meaning, and thus immortality. Waswo refers to this as the constitutive view of language. The

constitutive view explains the relationship between words and meaning in much the same way as

one would explain the relationship between music and sound (Waswo, 60-1). The relationship of

the latter involves “constituting those thoughts, feelings, objects, and meanings in the very act of

articulating them” (60). More simply, the words are capable of creating an idea or concept

simply by being coined. This conclusion meant a great deal for English, because the requirement

that a language be in use in order to acquire meaning meant that the vernacular was suddenly

5

more effective than Latin. Both Vives and Erasmus pointed out that grammar was not

constructed for Latin, but rather the rules were made evident by the way that Latin is used. The

new concept that it is usage which will determine the rules, not the other way round, puts a

greater level of importance on the culture that speaks the language. Elsky explains, “Instead of

providing resistance to meaning, culture is the only locus out of which verbal meaning can

emerge” (38; emph. added). Moreover, a language which is not directly affected by a culture

that uses it cannot be used as effectively as a language which is directly affected. Because Latin

was governed by grammar, and not by culture, it began to be understood as a “dead” language.

Waswo quotes an unknown Roman courtier who refers to “dead Latin words” versus “a living

vernacular” (159). This new distinction infused the vernacular with an ability of which Latin

was incapable. Whereas before this change the oral / aural nature of English was a detriment to

the language, with the advent of the humanist opinion on language, the affects of culture on the

vernacular began to be seen not only as acceptable, but vital to language’s ability to acquire

meaning.

The initiation of the humanist idea that language acquires meaning through use in speech

lead to a number of Renaissance authors acquiring a faith in a speaking posterity that would keep

alive what they had written in English. That is, because language does not exist as a permanent

relationship between words and meaning, but instead the meaning of language is “contingent on

the purposes of a human community” (Waswo, 136), requires the language written in to be

maintained by a speaking culture in order for the written work to maintain its authority. It is

from this idea that we get the concept of the “speech community” that Waswo refers to. Waswo

explains,

The Renaissance claims [of literary immortality]…require[e] not only the survival of the text as a physical object…but also readers who can comprehend it…the posterity so

6

invoked is that of speakers [emph. in orig.]. It is a speech community, the idea of which, developed in humanist philology, had helped make vernaculars respectable in the first place (55).

In other words, in the Renaissance the preservation of what was written in the vernacular was

only deemed to be possible with the assistance of a speaking posterity. This is made explicitly

clear in the emphasis placed on the “eyes” and “breath” of readers in many poems of the

Renaissance, including Shakespeare’s sonnets.

However, simply the fact that English was a vernacular in use was not enough to give it

the eloquence it needed to have true authority. In order for English to be deemed a language

capable of achieving immortality, reform was necessary. In order to instigate this reform, English

humanists looked to the example of the Roman orators. This is evident in the emphasis on the

importance of plainness, propriety and custom (Vos, 383), which can be seen in both the Roman

orators and the English humanists. The critic Alvin Vos praises the Cambridge humanists in

particular because, according to him, “they alone managed to oppose wholesale neologizing

while allowing necessary linguistic augmentation to continue” (377). During the 16th Century

one of the greatest criticisms of English was its acceptance of many new words into its lexicon.

These words are referred to as “inkhorn terms,” or neologisms, and they were considered

ineloquent. Vos is suggesting that where the Cambridge humanists went right was that they

decided that new words should only be accepted when it is absolutely necessary to the lexicon.

That is, when there is no other word in the language to refer to that particular idea. The need for

“necessary augmentation” is also evident in the works of the Roman orators. Because clarity is

of such importance to Roman orators such as Quintilian, the need for propria verba, or as Vos

has translated it “proper words” (380), becomes all the more important. Although a great

dedication to original Latin words exists for Roman orators such as Quintilian, Caesar and

7

Cicero, the need for clarity outweighs their aversion to neologisms. Vos explains that “‘proper’

words join native, common words as the basic ingredients of a style distinguished for purity and

perspicuity” (381). Such an emphasis on purity and perspicuity is later picked up by the

Cambridge humanists and their emphasis on prudent and necessary borrowing. John Cheke

(1514-57) called it a “bashfulnes” of language (388; quoted in Vos). Moreover, despite the

humanist’s aversion to Latin as a dead language, there was still respect for the Roman orators

and their methods of orthography.

However, there was one factor that divided the humanist group into two different parties.

This factor was the issue of how best to regulate spelling. Because of the importance of speech

in the humanist group, there were many who thought the best way to regulate spelling would be

through sound. Thus the custom of spelling would be dictated by the way words sound and how

those sounds correspond to the letters of the alphabet. This idea was refuted by one important

humanist in particular by the name of Richard Mulcaster. Mulcaster believed spelling should be

regulated, not by sound alone, but by the joint regulation of sound, custom and reason. By

“custom” and “reason” Mulcaster means he wants to maintain the custom of English’s written

form, which has been established by speakers of writers of great “reason,” that is, those who

have demonstrated their own ability to use English eloquently.

In his monumental work The First Part of the Elementarie (1582) Richard Mulcaster

joins the other humanists of his time in questioning the authority of classical languages and

rhetoric. Mulcaster and others were not attempting to disqualify the authority of Latin, so much

as validate the authority of English, which is verified through its common use in speech. As the

critic John Wesley says, “Mulcaster and his humanist predecessors actually reveal a conception

of a text as both spatial and aural, dead and also alive” (20). For the humanists, it is English’s

8

status as a living language with a relationship to speech that gives it the ability to acquire

meaning and validity in a way that Latin cannot. The spoken quality of English is the most

important quality (although, as Wesley points out, there is a “dead” and unspoken side to English

as well) and various attempts at spelling reform, despite their differences, are all attempting to

preserve the nature of English as a spoken (living) language through its written (dead) form. As

Mulcaster says, writing is “the aspectable figur of such an audible sound” (73; emph. in orig.).

Because Latin was overwhelmingly respected over vernaculars, particularly the English

vernacular, Mulcaster cannot, and does not, deny its influence. Latin being accepted as the

authority, Mulcaster applies ideas from classical rhetoric to English in order to verify English as

a language capable of an eloquence equal to Latin. However, unlike the Cambridge humanists of

which Vos speaks, Mulcaster does not go so far as to emphasize the importance of plainness,

propriety and custom (Vos, 383) in English. Instead, Mulcaster draws upon the fact that the

Roman orators also participated in the refining of the Latin tongue. He uses this information to

support his own practice of refining English.

In Mulcaster’s Epistle that prefaces his Elementarie, a volume that takes on the challenge

of making English an eloquent language through reason and custom, he draws on classical

rhetoric to entertain the possibility of English’s eloquence. Mulcaster cites “M. Messala the

graue counselor, M. Cicero the great orator, C. Caesar the famous conquerer, who delt this waie

in the Latin tung, and thereby did win, both credit to themselues, and countenance to their

cuntrie” (Epistle). First, by “delt this waie” Mulcaster is referring to Messala, Cicero and

Caesar’s use of orthography. Second, it is evident that Mulcaster considers these three orators’s

commitment to the improvement of language as a patriotic act, which will “win…countenance to

their cuntrie.” Mulcaster’s praise of the ways in which the orthography of these three

9

strengthened their nation supports his own endeavor to do the same for English. Mulcaster cites

Caesar, Cicero and Messala as classical orthographers, which suggests that Latin was once an

inelegant vernacular with need of refining just as English was considered to be in the 16th

Century. Since Latin in the 16th Century is considered to be the most eloquent of all languages,

its own improvement by orthographers at one time suggests that English has the potential to

reach a similar authority if it is improved by orthographers as well. Because of Latin’s authority,

Mulcaster does not need to cite more proofs than this. In fact, after citing these three rhetoricians

Mulcaster states “I will use no mo (sic) examples, where there is no more nede, neither prouf of

other tungs, where the Latin is enough” (Epistle). By using these three to support his own

refining of English, Mulcaster draws on the authority of Latin. However, by the very nature of

his project (the refining of English), Mulcaster moves away from dependence on classical

authority by proposing to give English a new authority of its own.

Mulcaster further questions the power of classical authority by drawing on examples of

eloquent use of the language in his own time. The Epistle dedicates The Elementarie to “The

right honorable my verie good lord, the L. Robert Dudlie Earle of Leicester Baron of Denbigh,

knight of the most noble order of the garter and S. Michaël, master of hir maiesties horses, and

one of hir highnesse most honorable priuie counsel.” Mulcaster dedicated his first book,

Positions (1581) to Queen Elizabeth I, but he dedicates his second one to a leading statesmen in

Elizabeth’s court. Mulcaster was gainfully employed at the time he wrote Positions and

Elementarie so his dedications were not financially driven, but instead driven by a desire for

recognition. Dedicating a work to the Queen demonstrates Mulcaster’s hope that his work would

be acknowledged and circulated at court. In choosing Dudley for his second dedication,

Mulcaster accomplishes two things. First, as with Elizabeth, Mulcaster would hopefully have

10

gained recognition and circulation by dedicating his work to a person in a position of power.

Second, Mulcaster viewed Dudley as an important demonstrator of English’s potential for

eloquence. Mulcaster’s admiration of Dudley is clear in the way he praises Dudley’s use of the

language. Mulcaster explains that his choice in dedication is “not alltogither vnproper,

considering your honor both handle the pen your self excedinglie well, and far aboue the

common of most nobilitie” (Epistle). Because Dudley is able to achieve some eloquence in his

own use of English, Mulcaster draws on this fact to indicate that refining English is not an

entirely lost cause. Mulcaster uses the phrase “handle…well” to apply both to Dudley’s “pen”

and to his “self,” suggesting that Dudley’s ability to achieve eloquence in writing may be

connected to his refined and authoritative demeanor as a member of the court. Here Mulcaster

draws on the humanist concept that language derives meaning and authority from the culture

which surrounds it. In this way, Mulcaster is able to highlight the new authority of a living

language and challenge the authority of Latin.

The problem with the humanist concept of placing authority in English was that the

language wasn’t well respected because of its lack of development and standardization. This

lead to the widespread need for a standardized, stable spelling system. The development of such

a system was not a call for a complete lack of changeability in English in the manner of Latin.

Rather, the system was intended to allow a language affected by culture and change to maintain a

sense of stability that would allow English a more eternal nature. Mulcaster does not require that

English remain entirely unchangeable, but instead that the written language be governed by

reason, custom and sound in order to improve its eloquence in written as well as spoken form.

Mulcaster chooses to put his faith in the power writing, which contains the dual powers of

spelling and grammar. For Mulcaster, it is not a changing vernacular that he finds ineloquent,

11

but the lack of a standardized spelling system that will maintain the custom of English, even

when new words are introduced. Mulcaster expresses a wish that a new orthography might “help

to the fining of our own English tung, & thereby to make it to be of such account, as other tungs

be, which be therefor of such account, bycause theie be so fined” (Mulcaster, 56). This point

makes it clear that Mulcaster believes language can be “fined,” or purified, simply by the

implementation of standardized spelling, which other languages, such as French and Italian, have

implemented successfully. It is not the lack of changeability, as with Latin, that demonstrates

perfection to Mulcaster, but the structure of standardized spelling.

Although Mulcaster places great importance on spelling, the reason he does this is to

refine the eloquence of speech. He explains that standardizing spelling will “reduce our English

tung to som certain rule, for writing and reading, for words and speaking, for sentence and

ornament, that men maie know, when theie write or speak right” (Mulcaster, 55). In this way

Mulcaster draws a direct connection between writing well and speaking well. It is only with a

standard and reasonable spelling system that English speakers will be able to learn how to speak

correctly. The lack of “correct” writing and speaking for English had previously contributed to

the lack of respect for English, which in turn lead to a lack of faith in the capability of English to

last. Mulcaster hopes that by standardizing spelling for the “fining” [read: refining] of English

“we our selues also shall seem not to be barbarous, eue[n] by mean of our tung, seing fair speche

is som parcell of praise, and a great argument of a well ciuilled peple” (56). Here Mulcaster

draws a connection between “fining” the language and the “fair speche” that will result from

such a refinement. In this connection it is clear that Mulcaster relies on a refined spelling system

to direct the eloquence of speech.

12

Among the humanists, there were varying opinions on how best to refine spelling in order

to most effectively preserve speech. Given that there were no rules concerning the spelling of

English at the time Mulcaster is writing, and that there were many opinions concerning how the

language should be regulated, the state of English in the 16th Century was quite messy. For some

humanists, their own emphasis on the importance of speech led them to assert that spelling

should be regulated solely by sound. This was the case for John Hart, a contemporary of

Mulcaster who wrote about his idea for a new spelling in his Orthographie (1569). For Hart,

spelling reform meant a new orthography that reflected a spelling ruled by sound. Hart’s

argument, as described by Martin Elsky, emphasizes the importance of “reason” in a spelling

system he believes is dominated by “custome” (Elsky, 44). Custom, as Elsky paraphrases Hart,

“has preserved obsolete spellings even when letters no longer match the sounds of the words”

(Elsky, 44). Because Hart is frustrated with what he considers to be obsolete spelling structure,

his idea of “reason” is that spelling should be governed entirely phonetically. As Hart’s main

objective is to teach correct speech, his method of spelling reform was meant to demonstrate

proper pronunciation.

In The Elementarie, Mulcaster challenges Hart’s theories for a new spelling system.

Mulcaster also draw on the importance of “custom” and “reason,” but his definitions for these

concepts differ drastically from Hart. Though a humanist who also appreciates the importance of

speech, Mulcaster is not content to let spelling be ruled entirely by sound, and he insists that

custom and reason must also be involved in spelling reform. While for Hart rule of sound seems

to be inherent in his idea of reason, for Mulcaster reason and sound are two very different

concepts. In a personification of sound Mulcaster explains that sound is “in autoritie tyrannous”

(75). For Mulcaster, preserving the traditional spellings of English, providing some stability for

13

an ever changing spoken language, and teaching people how to speak well was only possible

with reason and custom guiding the power of sound (Mulcaster, 78). Mulcaster, just as Hart and

the other Cambridge humanists, is attempting to improve the eloquence of speech, however he

breaks with the humanists of John Hart’s circle in his desire to maintain a written “art” based on

custom and reason rather than phonetics. That is, an eloquent and standardized written language,

which will maintain stability, even as speech develops and changes with time. Mulcaster’s goal

is not to create a language with no room for change, but to allow for change in language and

culture without losing the stability and eloquence of the language. This he achieves through

relying on custom and reason to guide written language, which will guide spoken language.

It is clear from Mulcaster’s definition of “custom” that it is only through the combination

of reason, custom and sound that language will be made “fit.” Mulcaster defines “custom” as

“not that which men do or speak commonlie or most, vpon whatsoeuer occasion, but onelie that,

which is grounded at first, vpon the best and fittest reason, and is therefor to be vsed, bycause it

is the fittest” (80). Thus, Mulcaster distinguishes between common ways of speaking, which are

not suitable to govern a language, and customs “grounded…vpon the best and fittest reason”

(emphasis added), which will improve the language. Mulcaster’s introduction of reason into the

spelling debate is what makes his method of spelling reform so effective. Reason for Mulcaster

is not based in sound, but rather a kind of logic that works with custom to help guide sound.

Hart complained that spelling was based on arbitrary customs that have nothing to do with the

way the words sound, but Muclaster is not choosing arbitrary customs. Mulcaster’s emphasis on

the importance of reason as a part of custom allows his spelling to maintain authority. That is,

Mulcaster’s authorities (reason and custom) allow him to create an eloquent language. Therefore,

Mulcaster wishes to maintain the customary forms of spelling, not because there is a visual

14

connection between the words and the way they sound, but because that is the custom for

spelling words, “grounded upon reason,” and that same custom will also tell how a word should

be pronounced. It is for this reason that Mulcaster does not believe, as Hart does, that reason is

based in sound.

For Mulcaster, the fact that writing was originally governed by sound was only a matter

of necessity when creating a language, and now the connection between sounds and letters in a

phonetic spelling system is as arbitrary to him as the idea of custom is to Hart. Mulcaster

explains that writing had to be ruled by sound when it originated because it was invented to carry

speech when the voice was not strong enough. Mulcaster explains that letters were invented with

the purpose “that such a sound in the voice should be resembled by such a signe to the eie : and

that such a signe in the eie should be so returned to the ear, as the aspectable figure of such an

audible sound” (Mulcaster, 73; emph. in orig.). The reason writing yielded to sound when it was

created was that it was necessary to express the sounds of speech that the voice was unable to

carry. However, this does not mean that this relationship between sound and letters must be

maintained when it is no longer necessary. Mulcaster demonstrates that there is no essential

connection with the shape of a letter and the sound someone makes when pronouncing it

(Mulcaster, 72). Moreover, although letters were created by necessity to represent certain

sounds, the letters do not have an innate connection with a certain sound either “by them selues

or anie vertew in their form” (Mulcaster, 72). Thus Mulcaster argues that sound should not

control the spelling of a language, because a phonetic spelling system does not necessarily

demonstrate proper pronunciation. This is because the connection between sound and letters is

not set in stone, but in fact reason and custom are necessary for stability in language.

15

In the beginning of The Elementarie, Mulcaster presents what scholars refer to as the

“Allegory of Sound.” This section of Mulcaster’s work catalogues the rise and fall of the power

of sound over language. Sound begins with power because as language is developed there is a

necessary relationship between sound and letters. This leads to the people putting faith in the

authority of sound to guide language. This is discovered to be a mistake because sound is a

“tyrant.” That is, because each person speaks, and each person speaks differently, sound is able

to wreak havoc in the spelling system by allowing each person their own authority based on their

own pronunciation. Thus, sound does not allow for a sense of standardization. This, however, is

not sound’s fault, it is the fault of the people for putting too much faith in sound. So reason and

custom are introduced as co-rulers. However, because of sound’s tyranny, it continues to

attempt to take control of the spelling system. In order to avoid the errors created by sound over

time, Muclaster recommends the implementation of art, that is written rules. With the addition

of written rules, the various agreements achieved by use of custom, reason and sound together

will be preserved.

From reading Mulcaster’s allegory of sound it is clear that Mulcaster does not see much

point in relying on sound to guide the development of written language. Sound does not provide

stability, and neither does it effectively guide pronunciation. To address the former, the allegory

makes it clear that if both written and spoken language are to be eloquent, language must not be

ruled by sound. For example, Mulcaster’s dislike of the rule of sound is because he does not

think that the most commonly accepted ideas are necessarily the best. Here we return to

Mulcaster’s introduction of the term reason. It is not the customs which are most common that

are the most effective, but those which adhere to the greatest reason. For Mulcaster, the original

problem with sound is not that it is defective in itself, but that its governing of language allows

16

all speakers to “become a law unto themselves” (O’Neill, 243). Mulcaster’s blame for the failure

of sound lies not on sound itself, but on people in the allegory who “vnaduisedlie ouercharged

him [sound], with such an estate, as he could not weild alone, without his great dishonor” (74).

The sounds people choose to correspond to letters are not always perfectly consistent, therefore

if sound governs the language alone it provides each speaker with too much power, which causes

a great variety in spellings, rather than stability. Mulcaster’s depiction of sound as a tyrant is

indicative of the uncontrollable nature of a spelling ruled by sound. In Mulcaster’s

personification of sound, he describes it as “in autoritie tyrannous” (75). The implication here is

that if sound governs a language alone, it will become a tyrant. The implied effect for language

by “sound’s tyranny” is lack of organization, regulation and eloquence. This is what is implied

when Mulcaster says sound cannot rule (language) alone “without his great dishonor” (74). In

reality the dishonor Mulcaster is talking about is not applied to sound, but to the status of the

English language when it is ruled by sound, and perhaps by extension the dishonor of Hart.

Moreover, sound will not provide language with a standard spelling, and therefore is not helpful

in developing the eloquence of English.

The second important thing learned from Mulcaster’s allegory is that writing is capable

of preserving arguments and ideas for eternity. The fact that writing will immortalize what is

written only further supports the need for a standardized spelling system. If a spelling is

maintained, then what is preserved will be understandable to the generations that come after.

Mulcaster explains that the combination of power between sound, custom and reason is not

enough to keep sound from creating “creping error[s]” (82). In the end, it is only “art,” that is,

written rules, which is capable of keeping sound’s power in line. The purpose of art is to

maintain a balance between the three oligarchs (reason, custom and sound) by writing down the

17

rules that are verified by all three rulers. It is “reason” (personified in the allegory) that comes to

the realization of the importance of

set[ting] that in euerlasting autoritie, by right rule and trew writing, which he [reason] and custom both, by the consent of sound, (emph. in orig.) had continewed in vse, tho not put down in writing, which wold euer be in danger of continuall reuolt, from the best to the worst, by the vncertaintie of time, and the eluishnesse of error, oneless it were set in writing (82; emph. added).

The first important point of this passage is that writing is able to preserve what speech cannot.

By the use of “trew writing” it is possible to maintain “euerlasting autoritie.” The second is that

writing allows for a stable and unchanging preservation. This point relates back to the

changeability of speech. The passage of time creates changes in culture, which creates changes

in language. However, certainty can be regained by the power of a standardized writing system.

Mulcaster calls this writing process the “artificial method” (82), meaning artificial not in the

sense of fake, but in the sense that it is constructed by humans. Again, it is the construction of

art, that is the writing, that allows words and rules and the speech preserved therein to persist

through time. Although art is the supreme power over language at the end of the allegory, it is

not a tyrant as with sound. Art’s power is simply regulating the oligarchical power of reason,

custom and sound. Thus, the art of written language becomes the most important aspect of

creating an eloquent speech. That is, by use of art, Mulcaster is able to confine sound to the page

in written words which dictate the way they are to be pronounced by means of custom.

Moreover, the use of custom and reason in Mulcaster’s orthography allows him to preserve

speech in writing in way that is not possible through the use of a phonetic spelling.

Despite the great faith Mulcaster has in English’s authority and eloquence, the language

was generally considered to have a lack of stability during the 16th Century and before, and for

this reason few authors had written anything of consequence in English before the Renaissance.

18

The need felt by most authors to write something which would remain for eternity necessitated

the use of a stable language capable of being immortalized. This language was Latin, and Latin

remained the most popular language for maintaining written authority throughout the

Renaissance. This created a problem for the development of the authority of English. In Joachin

Du Bellay’s Défense et Illustration de la Langue Française (1549) he expresses the sentiment,

which Abrams paraphrases, “that the value of a language is not inherent in the language itself,

but depends upon what great and fine works are written in that language” (Abrams, 382). The

few people who did begin to write in English during the 16th and 17th Centuries were key to the

development of the language into a well respected language of eloquence. One of these key

writers was Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder (1503-1542). Wyatt spent quite a bit of his life abroad.

While abroad Wyatt encountered the Sonnets of Francesco Petrarch, and he liked them so much

that he translated many of them into English (Abrams, 452). Wyatt’s introduction of the sonnet

to English was a key development in improving eloquence and authority in English. Wyatt’s

contribution lead to the further contributions of such influential poets as Henry Howard, Earl of

Surrey (1517-1547) and Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) who wrote Astrophel and Stella, which is

considered to be one of the first great Elizabethan sonnet cycles (Abrams, 469); and it was the

work of these men that paved the way for the work of the most well known sonnet writer of the

English Renaissance, William Shakespeare (1564-1616). Shakespeare’s Sonnets, published in

1609, are an example of the eloquence of English that Mulcaster believed was possible.

The new belief in the Renaissance that a speaking posterity could immortalize written

language more effectively than a dead language allows poets such as Shakespeare to use English

with a new found sense of eloquence and authority. Because Shakespeare is writing poetry, he is

also able to add another element to the preservation of speech through writing, which is the

19

preservation of life through the breath that is used to speak the sonnets. In Shakespeare’s first

126 sonnets, written to “the friend,” the speaker prescribes two main ways for the friend to

achieve immortality. The first is through the friend’s own offspring, and the second is through

poetry. Though most of the sonnets from 12 to 126 are acknowledged for their temporal themes,

this paper will look at sonnets 17, 18 and 65 as examples of the way Shakespeare uses the

preservation of speech through writing to create an immortality for his sonnets, which allows the

sonnets to preserve a more full life than would be possible in a language such as Latin. For

example, in Sonnet 17 the couplet concludes “But were some child of yours alive that time / You

should live twice, in it, and in my rhyme” (17.13-4). The immortal nature of the friend’s

offspring and the written poem are equated in this couplet. The idea that the friend will continue

to live through his or her children and grandchildren is easy to understand and accept because the

offspring will bear (to some extent) his or her blood and flesh. However, the idea of someone

living through verse is not as obvious. It is through Shakespeare’s immortalization of the friend

by means of verse that makes the Sonnets the literary manifestation of Mulcaster’s ideas about

“art” as a means of not only effectively conveying meaning, but also of giving words the power

to endure and preserve speech despite the decay of time.

The first connection that can be drawn between Mulcaster’s work and Shakespeare’s is

that Shakespeare’s art, like Mulcaster’s preserves what is written so that it is not altered by the

changeability of a spoken language as it progresses through time. The power of writing to

preserve against the power of time is particularly clear in Sonnet 18. The third quatrain reads:

But thy eternal summer shall not fade,Nor lose possession of the fair thou ow’st,Nor shall death brag thou wander’st in his shade,When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st (9-12).

20

The inconsistency of “eternal summer” sets up the quatrain for its paradoxical proof that the

friend can live after he is dead: “When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st.” Here it is the lines’

power over time that is of most importance. The speaker compares his friend to a summer’s day,

which the critic Helen Vendler calls “the most beautiful thing…in an (English) world” (121).

However, the speaker repeatedly criticizes the summer’s day for its “rough winds” (l. 3) and

excessive heat (l. 5), and its tendency for degeneration (l. 6-7), and, most importantly, for its

brevity (l. 4). The brevity of summer is echoed in the brevity of the friend’s life. It is this

imperfection in the season and the person that the poet proposes to fix in his friend’s “eternal

summer,” by means of his verse. Time is all powerful in this sonnet. It has the power to continue

to erode the beauty of summer and of a person, but the speaker believes his lines capable of

overriding this power. The power of the poet to hold back time through verse is clear in Sonnet

65 when the speaker asks

Or what strong hand can hold his [time’s] swift foot back?Or who his spoil of beauty can forbid? O! none, unless this miracle have might,That in black ink my love may still shine bright” (l. 11-14).

In this sonnet the only thing that can stop the entity of time that progresses the “spoil of beauty”

is a “strong hand,” or rather handwriting as Vendler also notes (306). In the final couplet of 65

we can see the success of such a “strong hand.” The “black ink” of the final line represents the

writing of the “strong hand” which is able to hold time’s “swift foot back.” The poetry’s power

over time is expressed in line 13 as a “miracle.” Vendler helps point out the connection between

“black ink” and “miracle” by noting that “it is not until we notice the sounds and letters held in

common by miracle and black inck (Quatro spelling) that the conjunction of miracle and black

in[c]k makes poetic sense” (304; emph. in orig.). The “poetic sense” that Vendler references is

that the connection between ink and miracle is indicative of the connection between the lexical

21

and the immortal. The connection between writing and immortality is made sense of by the god-

like connection between ink and miracles.

The belief in the power of the lexical to preserve in Sonnet 106 is reinforced by the

reference to other texts which have been preserved through time for the eyes of the poet. The

beauty of the friend (which the poet hopes to preserve) has been prophesied by some poet’s

“antique pen.” Although the speaker of this particular sonnet does not seem confident that he

will be able to preserve the friend’s beauty here (l. 13-4), the reference to the prophesy of the

antique pen suggests that writing does preserve beauty in the way that the poet hopes to in some

of the other sonnets. The third quatrain reads:

I see their antique pen would have expressedEven such a beauty as you master now.So all their praises are but propheciesOf this our time, all you prefiguring (l. 7-10).

This stanza accomplishes two important things. First of all, the “antique pen” of l. 7 indicates

that this “chronicle” is something that has been written down. The word “chronicle” itself

suggests a written record. It is the written quality of the chronicle that has preserved it for the

eyes of the poet in Sonnet 106. The preserving effect of the writing of the ancient chroniclers is

echoed in the poet’s references to the power of his own writing to preserve beauty in many of his

other sonnets. The second important part of this quatrain is the suggestion that the ancient

written words are “prophecies.” This word allows the speaker to suggest that the friend’s beauty

has a timeless quality to it that these ancient chroniclers (implied in “their”) can only hope to

imitate. This prophecy is important not only for the power of written words to stretch across

time, but the fact that the prophesied beauty falls short of the beauty of the friend begins to

suggest that the writing is not all powerful. While writing preserves the words written, the words

22

alone don’t seem to be capable of conveying what the poet sees, that is the true beauty of the

friend.

Because the true beauty of the friend cannot be preserved through words alone,

Shakespeare writes in English in order to preserve spoken aspect of what he has written. The

breath required to voice the preserved words is what will add the element of life to the beauty of

the friend. In Sonnet 106 lack of “tongues” is what concerns the poet. Without the addition of a

voice to the poem, the poet does not have faith that the beauty of the friend will be properly

preserved: “they looked but with diving eyes, / They had not skill enough your worth to sing” (l.

11-12). In these lines it is not the “ancient pen” that is important, but the voice of the poet,

which is ineffective. The poet also condemns his own ability to convey the beauty of the friend,

saying “For we, which now behold these present days, / Have eyes to wonder, but lack tongues

to praise” (l. 13-4). Here the poet affects modesty in order to suggest the greatness of the

friend’s beauty. However, it is important to note that the reason the poet suggests his poetry

might fail to preserve friend’s beauty is because there are no “tongues” to add voice to the beauty

preserved through written words. The addition of the voice is essential to the poet’s full and true

preservation of the friend’s beauty. Vendler elaborates that “‘seeing’ and ‘singing’ organize this

poem: to be a poet it is necessary to see…but it is also necessary…to sing (as the apologetic

speaker cannot, but as the ancient chroniclers, in their beautiful old rhyme, did)” (450; emph. in

orig.). The poet’s despair in 106 is thus linked with the lack of speech implied in this particular

poem. Without, “tongues to praise” the immortality of the friends beauty cannot be preserved by

the writer of this sonnet in the way it was by the ancient chroniclers.

The power of Shakespeare’s poetry to survive against the destruction of time lies in the

fact that the written poetry attains life through breath, or rather speech. A reader of Mulcaster

23

will be able to see clearly the preservation of speech in Shakespeare’s sonnets, and thus the

added layer of the preservation of life, which allows for immortal quality of the sonnets. The

friend’s immortality is therefore dependent on the survival of the sonnets, and this connection is

made evident in the verbal and visual connections between words in the sonnets. In the final

couplet of Sonnet 17, the connection between the life of a person and the life of a poem is

evidence of the living quality of the sonnet: “But were some child of yours alive that time / You

should live twice, in it, and in my rhyme” (l. 13-14). The idea that someone would live on in his

or her offspring is easy to accept, as a person lives and breathes. In contrast, words written on a

page do not live or breath per se, and yet they are equated to “some child of yours alive” as

equally capable of allowing the friend to “live.” The connection between poetry and life is all

the more evident in the connection between “lines” and “lives” in Sonnet 18. In her analysis of

Sonnet 18, Vendler notes “that in the Quatro spelling, lines and liues differ only by the turning

upside-down of one letter, making a quasi-punning Couplet Tie” (122; emph. in orig.). This

visual connection allows for the poetic connection between written lines and life. The factor that

makes this poetic leap possible is the presence of speech preserved in the poem. It is only

through speaking these words that the full poetic connection between the lines and the life in

them is made evident. In the first quatrain the poet equates his verse to “a tomb / Which hides

your life, and shows not half your parts” (3-4). In these lines the power of written poetry

preserves but does not give life. In fact it entombs the beauty of the friend, which is to say it

preserves the body, or the image, but not the life. In the final couplet it is clear that the reader is

necessary in order to give life to the sonnet and the friend: “So long as men can breath or eyes

can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee” (l. 13-14). The written nature of the

sonnet will preserve the sonnet for as long as the words are preserved, but the need for a reader

24

means that the life of the sonnet can only last as long as someone is there to see it, speak it, and

breathe life into it.

It must be acknowledged that the scholar George T. Wright argues that the sonnets are

actually not intended to be read aloud, despite the Renaissance practice of reading nearly

everything aloud. Wright argues that the sonnets are “capable of being voiced by the poet or by

the person addressed (or by any of us) but at least equally appropriately read without sound”

(137). I do not speak for all the sonnets, but I would argue that for sonnets 17, 18 and 65 the

sonnets gain a new and significant level of meaning by the preservation of speech, which

becomes evident when comparing Shakespeare with Mulcaster. In sonnet 65, the hope that the

lines might preserve the life, or breath, of the sonnet, and thus the friend, is clear. The beginning

of the second quatrain asks the question “O! how shall summer’s honey breath hold out [against

time]” (l. 5). As the friend is connected to summer in Sonnet 18 by the phrase “thy eternal

summer,” summer’s “breath” in sonnet 65 can be connected to the breath, or life, of the friend.

The former can be preserved through the “miracle” of “black ink,” but the latter needs “men

[who] can breathe” (18.13) to transform the written material into speech. Wright describes

written words as “inner talk turned to stone, as it were, speech that has never fully made it into

sound but has been formed and preserved all the same” (142). Although Wright makes this point

to further his argument that the sonnets do not need to be spoken aloud, it seems to me that the

speech is preserved precisely so that it will one day be spoken again. In Sonnet 17 the power of

the sonnet is not simply preserving the friend through the tomb of written lines, but actually

helping him to live. These arguments indicate to me that these sonnets were written with the

intention of being read aloud, the words are simply there to preserve the speech that will give life

to the poem. These sonnets might be “appropriately read without sound,” as Wright suggests,

25

that is, they may be read without sound, but when read this way they will be missing a significant

aspect of their meaning. With the addition of speech the sonnets gain a life of their own, which

poetically breathes life into the beauty of the friend.

Shakespeare’s Sonnets gain a new level of meaning when read with Mulcaster’s

Elementarie in mind. The sonnets demonstrate a use of English that not only validates English

as an eloquent language, but Shakespeare does this in a way that could not be done with a

language like Latin. In this way, Shakespeare is able to validate English as a new language of

authority that does not deny the authority of Latin, but is useful and capable in a way that Latin

can no longer be, because Latin no longer has a speaking community. Knowledge of Mulcaster’s

ideas about the preservation of speech will open the eyes of a reader of Shakespeare’s sonnets to

the way Shakespeare uses the preservation of speech to poetically preserve the life of his sonnets.

For the purposes of this paper I chose not to go into the details of linguistics, and neither did I

explore studies of the original pronunciation of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Needless to say, there is

further work to be done in this topic. The next step would be to examine what David Crystal

calls the Original Pronunciation, or the O.P., of the sonnets and see what conclusions can be

drawn from that. For now, I will leave you with a new reason to appreciate the eloquence and

beauty in Shakespeare’s Sonnets.

26

Bibliography

Abrams, M. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. W. W. Norton, 1968. Print.

Anderson, Judith. Words That Matter: Linguistic Perception in Renaissance English. 1st ed. Stanford

University Press, 1996. Print.

Elsky, Martin. Authorizing Words: Speech, Writing, and Print in the English Renaissance. Cornell

Univ Pr, 1990. Print.

Jones, Richard Foster. Triumph of the English Language: A Survey of Opinions Concerning the

Vernacular from the Introduction of Printing to the Restoration. 1St Edition. Stanford Univ Pr,

1974. Print.

Kaula, David. “‘In War with Time’: Temporal Perspectives in Shakespeare’s Sonnets.” Studies in

English Literature, 1500-1900 3.1 (1963): 45–57. Web. 14 Dec. 2012.

Mulcaster, Richard. Ed. E. T. Campagnac. The Elementarie. Oxford University Press, 1925. Print.

O'Neill, Maria. "Richard Mulcaster's Allegory: A Humanist View Of Language And State."

Miscelánea: A Journal Of English And American Studies 18.(1997): 241-252. MLA International

Bibliography. Web. 3 Sept. 2012.

Quint, David. Origin and Originality in Renaissance Literature: Versions of the Source. Yale Univ

Pr, 1983. Print.

Swisher, Clarice, and Scott Barbour, eds. Readings on the Sonnets. Greenhaven Pr, 1996. Print.

27

Vendler, Helen. The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

Print.

Vos, Alvin. “Humanistic Standards of Diction in the Inkhorn Controversy.” Studies in Philology 73.4

(1976): 376–396. Web. 14 Dec. 2012.

Waswo, Richard. Language and Meaning in the Renaissance. Princeton Univ Pr, 1987. Print.

Wesley, John. “Mulcaster’s Boys: Spenser, Andrews, Kyd.” Ph.D., School of English: University of

Saint Andrews, 2008.

Wiener, Leo. “Richard Mulcaster, An Elizabethan Philologist.” Modern Language Notes 12.3 (1897):

65–70. Web. 14 Dec. 2012.

Wright, George T. “The Silent Speech of Shakespeare’s Sonnets” James Schiffer, ed. Shakespeare’s

Sonnets: Critical Essays. Routledge, 2000. Print.