Shakespeare's bawdy: A literary & psychological essay and a comprehensive glossary

by Eric Partridge

This is a work of delight and insight that has an appeal that transcends time and class. A classic work, it takes its place alongside other classics with a slightly cheeky impunity.

Genres: Shakespeare, Reference, Nonfiction, History, Language, Criticism, Literary Criticism

223 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1948

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I considered not putting this on Facebook, but actually I think my homeschooling friends would profit from this review.

This book is a dictionary, the best sort of dictionary, the type of dictionary full of meanings that explain difficult if not obsolete words in a particular author that we find it easy to misunderstand. The book makes it very clear that in the Elizabethan world-picture everything was integrated and connected and multifaceted. The inventiveness of their metaphors is astounding, in Shakespeare especially. In this they strikingly resemble the Old Testament (and the Old Testament has the bawdiness too, albeit to a lesser degree.)

Of course, one thing that fit into this world-picture was human reproduction and the body parts used thereto. There were few realms in Shakespeare that were taboo and so we come to the question of whether what they did was appropriate. Their language was more loaded than ours is. So there are two questions: a) ought certain parts of the universe to be illicit topics, and b) how does Shakespeare use them.

To the first, I would say there should be stuff we don't talk about around kids,* but there is very little that mature adults should not be willing to talk about at any time. Even the Bible uses mature sexual language in the middle of Israel's history (Ezekiel, Song of Solomon) hinting, I think, at the particular age appropriate for knowing about such matters.

Second, how does Shakespeare employ it as a whole? What is the context? His usage is definitely higher than the Bible's and I am willing to study this more and certainly there are many, many jokes I find hard to laugh at and I don't feel I'm a prude when I do that. That said, I find the honesty refreshing and do not see it as condoning sexual unfaithfulness. Shakespeare is very, very tough on male unfaithfulness and male-psychotic jealousy (that's one reason why I love Joss Whedon's Much Ado so much). Read Pericles: Marina is as good a picture of feminine chastity as I can think of--with a great deal of dirt around her. But that's the point of evil. Evil is not meant to be resented or hidden, but fought and overcome. I think Shakespeare gets that and his affirmation of sexual fidelity and we should enjoy his bodily honesty just as much as Austen's propriety. Losing one or the other is not good.

You may disagree with my assessment of Shakespeare. While Shakespeare finds sexual infidelity and activity something he can talk about, his plays end with weddings to often to celebrate them. And after all what is a wedding but a promise of sexual monogamy? Unless we want to say Shakespeare celebrated treachery, I think the case is closed.

Finally, a quote from Partridge: "indeed of all poets, dramatists, novelists whatsoever, Shakespeare has dealt the most profoundly and the most shrewdly, the most spiritually (he out-Dante's Dante), the most lyrically (bettering even Meredith's Love in the Valley ), the most sympathetically, the most humorously, the most materialistically and cynically, and, above all, the most comprehensively and comprehendingly, with that passion and that affection, that alter-egoing and that sublimation, that selfishness and selflessness, which are: love."

* One of my greatest frustrations with Shakespeare films today is the sex and violence. I think most Shakespeare films are helpful because they allow you to understand the story and if films are distracting kids and teenagers from the story through all that adult stuff, then it destroys any interaction with the story. Adults, on the other hand, often have more important things to do. Such as making babies ;)

[M.G. Bianco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book with some interesting insight to Shakespeare's use of language in his writings. One might go so far as to say it is fascinating. The first part of the book is an essay about Shakespeare's use of language in a few categories: non-sexual bawdy, homosexual, sexual, general, and valedictory. The second part of the book is a thorough glossary of the sexual or bawdy meanings behind a variety of terms and phrases from Abhorson (son of a whore) to youth (youth with its sexual curiosity and amorous ardour). Each glossary entry explains the sexual or bawdy meaning behind the term or phrase as well as provides at least one example of it being used that way in one of Shakespeare's plays.

A couple of thoughts from the book, though. The author definitely emphasizes Shakespeare's sexual language over and above everything else. But, he does not give the impression that Shakespeare was a pervert. The author writes:

In him [Shakespeare], erotic wit often becomes so penetrating, so profound, so brilliant that it would make us forget the eroticism, were it not that the eroticism itself is penetrating and profound; and certainly the degree of wit renders the eroticism aseptic and--except to prudes and prurients--innocuous.

And further:

Shakespeare knew what he intended to do--and did it. The word or phrase always suits either the speaker or the scene or the event: usually, it is consonant with all three factors. If it suits none of them, then the reader will find that it suits the psychological or moral or spiritual atmosphere, as in the speeches of Timon when fate has turned him into a misanthropist.

These quotations, to me, point to the main difference between Shakespeare's bawdiness and the crudeness of many modern stories, either in writing or on television or film. Shakespeare's wit does something to the erotic that changes it, making it what the author calls aseptic and innocuous. This is not because modern readers simply don't catch the wit, it holds true even for audiences of Shakespeare's day. Further, though, his bawdy suits the speaker, scene, event, or psychological, moral, or spiritual atmosphere. Now, one could say that the same is true for a modern sitcom: the crudeness of their humor fits the story. The difference, however, is that many of these modern sitcoms create the story in such a way so that the crudeness always fits. Shakespeare, as any cursory reading will indicate to the average reader, deals with issues that are deep and complex, yet artfully brings the bawdy into those stories in a way that suits.

He is a master storyteller, and Partridge's book only makes that all the more clear.

One other note, Partridge has written a work that focuses on the bawdy. It is possible to read this book and think that he is somehow implying that Shakespeaere's plays are nothing but bawdy. That, of course, is not true. Were he to take the time to bring balance to the discussion, one would find that Shakespeare is just as serious when he need be as he is bawdy when it is fitting.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful concordance of the "naughty bits" in William Shakespeare's plays. Your mind may be in the gutter when you think that you've caught an improper reference to lower bodily functions in that supernumerary's smirking aside. The consolation is, you're likely not wrong, and you're not alone.

Acquired 1997
The Word, Montreal, Quebec

[Joyce · Rating 3 out of 5]

my rating reflects only the essay itself which is more a way of pointing the reader towards a directed use of the glossary, which i'm sure is stellar. there is an acid dismissive tone towards gay shakespeare scholarship; odd that he'd say the evidence doesn't support homosexuality but does prove he was an extremely skilled lover who didn't care about cuckolds

[Lara · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was a kid my mom took me to a Shakespeare festival and on one of the days there was a seminar on...I don't even know what. Shakespeare and gender maybe? There were two academics on stage talking about the plays - a man and a woman. At one point the concept of "vagina dentata" came up and my mom whispered to me "Look how uncomfortable the man is with that concept - his arms and legs are crossed and he looks terribly nervous".

Then it came up that there was a book on the scholarship of sex, sexuality and Shakespeare called "Shakespeare's Bawdy", which she promptly went out and bought that day. I still have in my library at home - it's scholarly but fascinating. It's a bit "old fashioned" having been written in 1948, it has cultural blindspots obvious to us now - but I appreciate both the book and my mom's efforts to make sure my education was well rounded.

And when I think of something scandalous about Shakespeare, I think of my mom's amusement at that man's discomfort at the concept of having his dick bit off.

[Gail Cammero Reilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was fortunate to study Shakespeare for a year and thoroughly enjoyed “Shaesoesre’s Bawdy” because the Bard was so clever in how he used language.Bold, not banal!

[Sammy · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's somewhat redundant now, in an era where any annotated Shakespeare volume worth the price comes with a completely smuttified glossary, but there was a time - within the lifetime of some people still living - when this stuff was regularly omitted from teaching at any level. (It's the principal reason, to this day, that "Julius Caesar" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" top so many highschool curricula.)

So, top marks for Partridge for putting together a glossary that finds some remarkably obscure dirty words in Shakespeare. Love it.

The opening essay is more of a mixed bag, to be honest. One-third is great, just in justifying Shakespeare's use of smut (nowadays, as we know more about theatre production and can equate it with the 17th century, we need this less). One-third is really just a recap of the glossary, since clearly Partridge is feeling pretty defensive. The other third is... more pretentious. And unpleasant. It's Partridge's overly psychologically telling explanation of why Shakespeare was expressly heterosexual. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe Shakespeare was at most bisexual, and ultimately it doesn't matter. But Partridge - while certainly "tolerant" of the deviant homosexuals he sees everywhere around him - directly appeals to his heterosexual readers to show less bias and to appreciate that only a straight man would make so many vagina jokes while writing a play for a mainstream audience. Um, Eric? Half of my friends are homosexual writers and/or comedians, and very few of them are afraid to discuss the pudenda. At length. But, thanks for playing.

So, his contributions far outweigh his puzzling psychological tells, but this book is probably outdated nonetheless.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

This work explores the use of profane and salty imagery of the sexual and the bodily in Shakespeare's work, and by identifying wordplay, double entendres, and recurrent bodily themes in the works, makes reading, performing, and producing Shakespeare's work all the richer. Indispensable for actors, directors, and dramaturgs looking to bring new layers of meaning and amusement to productions.

[Jess · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a glossary prefaced by a couple essays. The essays are pretentious crap and the glossary is poorly organized. Still, any book that teaches you that holland is slang for bum can't be all bad.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating.

[Libby]

more of a glossary/dictionary than a sit down and read book

[Mandy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Do we really need a whole book dedicated to this? Though there was some useful information it does not need a whole book.