Chapter Standard English - the Beginning of Criticism of Critical Theory 1: Key Concepts by Literary Criticism

William Hazlitt is another writer who attempts to "give a mind to the people" by writing in their language: a language which is defined by its motion and imagination, rather than by its adherence to specific rules of grammar and syntax. Hazlitt, like Wordsworth, subscribes to the Unitarian theory that the widespread circulation of books and therefore knowledge is the key to "progress". He sees the vernacular Bible which Prince Charles so castigates as "the one great lever" of English liberty. Tom Paulin's study of Hazlitt, The Day Star of Liberty attempts to define a poetics of prose, which analyses prose in much the same way as traditional critics analyse poetry, looking for stresses upon particular words and scanning passages for their rhythm. This brings poetry and prose closer together, showing that, whilst good poetry often has the same qualities of prose, the opposite is also true: Hazlitt's prose often has a poetic motion and insistency to it. Thus there is a strange form of standardization taking place amongst the critics who are so stridently against Johnson and Swift's conception of standardization. By moving prose and poetry and prose closer together, Wordsworth, Hazlitt and Paulin are identifying certain qualities which are laudable in English - based around the Rational Dissent of Unitarian culture: motion, imagination, demotic speech, rhythm, muscularity.

It is therefore clear that standardization of language and standardization of belief are intrinsically linked. Each critic superimposes his political and philosophical inclinations over his theories of standardisation of the language. Wordsworth, Hazlitt and Paulin worship Milton and Shakespeare every bit as much as Swift and Johnson, but draw different conclusions from their works to reinforce their radical statements on language. The critics' mutual nostalgia calls to our attention the principal problem when considering the history of the English language. Any critic writing after 1700 must necessarily write with the weight of England's two great writers hanging over them. Shakespeare and Milton were so in command of the language, and, along with Chaucer (who, perhaps because of his bawdiness, is notably missing from the conservative critics' arguments), did so much to shape the literature of the following centuries. It is undeniable, however, much as one would like to argue against the conservative critics' appropriation of the Standard English debate as a platform for their reactionary politics, that the language has changed too much over the last century or so for Shakespeare or Milton to be regarded as an essential part of every Englishman's education as they were in the nineteenth century. Milton is now rarely taught in secondary schools in England and Shakespeare, especially when taught at GCSE level, often needs to be 'translated' by teachers before pupils can understand it. Charles and Mary Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare is merely the best known of a long list of 'watered-down' Shakespearean stories. Indeed, MQ Publications has recently issued a series entitled 'Shakespeare in Short' which claims to be "Shakespeare anyone can understand". Johnson and Swift were attempting the impossible in maintaining the English language's status quo. Since language is constantly changing, Shakespeare and Milton necessarily become more archaic as the language progresses. In five hundred years time, they will be indeed be regarded much as Beowulf is regarded now. Standard English is an unattainable ideal: language is so closely linked to a nation's cultural identity that any changes within the nation will necessarily be reflected in a change in the language. Johnson indeed talks of the language in terms taken straight from the realm of politics, talking about words taken from other languages being "aliens... rather auxiliaries than subjects". Attempting to stop the development of language is as futile as trying to stop the development of a nation.