Words and Phrases Shakespeare Gave Us

Shakespeare did not invent the English language. But he got there first — and that turns out to matter enormously.

When lexicographers say a word “first appears” in Shakespeare, they mean it is the earliest surviving written record. The word may have existed in spoken form before he used it, circulating in taverns and markets and playhouses without anyone thinking to write it down. Shakespeare wrote it down, it survived in print, and so it became his. Over 1,700 words enter the written record in his plays and poems. Some he coined deliberately. Others he simply caught in flight.

What is more interesting than the count is what he did with them. He turned nouns into verbs (to elbow, to champion), verbs into adjectives, and plain observations into idioms so accurate they never needed improving. He was not preserving language; he was stress-testing it — finding out how far it could bend before it broke, and discovering that it could bend very far indeed.

Words That Changed Meaning Over Time

Many of the words Shakespeare introduced or popularized are still in daily use, though their meanings have drifted — sometimes subtly, sometimes completely. The table below shows fifteen of the most interesting cases.

The drift is worth paying attention to. Addiction in Shakespeare’s Othello meant something like devoted enthusiasm — a strong habit of mind, not a medical condition. Gossip meant a godparent, someone trusted with your child’s spiritual life. Lonely had no connotation of peaceful solitude; it meant the particular ache of isolation. These words did not lose their original meanings so much as they slid, pulled by the currents of changing social life, until they arrived somewhere their inventor could not have anticipated.

Phrases That Survived

The phrases are in some ways more remarkable than the individual words, because phrases do not survive by accident. They survive because they describe something so accurately that no replacement phrase ever quite beats them.

The Falstaff note on “the world’s my oyster” is worth expanding. In The Merry Wives of Windsor, Pistol tells Falstaff he will not lend him money, and Falstaff replies: “Why then, the world’s mine oyster, / Which I with sword will open.” It is not an expression of optimism. It is a declaration of predatory intent. The phrase detached from that context, floated free, and became a phrase of cheerful ambition. Shakespeare would probably have found this funny.

“Brave new world” made the same journey in reverse. Miranda, who has grown up on a deserted island and never seen another human being besides her father, encounters the shipwrecked courtiers and cries out in wonder. The phrase is completely sincere. Aldous Huxley borrowed it as his title in 1932, and the irony of his novel retroactively colonized the phrase. Now it is almost impossible to use it without that irony. One phrase, four centuries, two opposite meanings.

How the Language Moved

Three patterns account for most of the drift.

The first is literalto figurative. Barefaced once meant an uncovered face, the absence of a beard, or a visor removed. It became a metaphor for shamelessness — the face that hides nothing because it has nothing to hide. Wild-goose chase was a literal game on horseback. Both phrases work figuratively because the original image was vivid enough to survive the abstraction.

The second is sacred to everyday. Majestic and pageantry once described divine or royal grandeur exclusively. The democratization of language brought them down to earth: a mountain view is majestic, a half-time show is pageantry. Nothing is lost in the descent; the words simply widened their application.

The third is serious to playful. Zany was a technical term for a clown’s assistant — the stooge who mimicked the lead clown’s pratfalls. Now it is affectionate, even complimentary. Swagger shed its arrogance and became a form of admirable confidence. Culture decided which emotional register to keep.

Why the Words Stuck

The deeper question is not which words Shakespeare gave us but why those particular words survived when so much Elizabethan English did not. The answer is almost always that the word or phrase named something that needed naming — a feeling, a social dynamic, a human behaviour — for which no existing term was quite adequate.

Lonely named a specific kind of aloneness that alone and solitary did not fully capture. Addiction named a degree of devoted habit that weaker words could not hold. The green-eyed monster named the particular self-torturing quality of jealousy — the way it devours the person who feels it more than the person who inspired it — more precisely than the word jealousy alone could manage.

This is what it means to say Shakespeare expanded English. Not that he added words to a list, but that he identified gaps in the language’s ability to describe human experience and filled them — with enough precision that the words he found, or found new uses for, have never been replaced.

Share This Page