> 1. 1567–1667† Discord, contention, tumult; a state of discord; a dispute, quarrel. Frequently in in (a) mutiny, at (a) mutiny. Obsolete.[1]
Mutiny in this case means as defined above. An old grudge is boiling over. Note that it is highly unlikely for the grudge to literally be ancient how I would think of that word today.
“Civil blood” Is a double meaning a reference to the prestige of the families and brings into contrast their incivility in their vendetta. Part of the magic of communication is deliberate double meaning. It is not a well defined API.
As someone with a disability who teaches computer science to students with disabilities (and without), your problems reading Shakespeare do not sound like those of people that come to mind when I read the term “regular person”.
If one is going to attempt to parse every word in the play and believes that it is the only way to follow the plot then one is going to have a bad time. If you could get to the Queen Mab speech reading that way then you’d probably melt at that point.
My suggested way forward is to not attempt to think definitionally about words that are used in a manner you cannot understand. When you arrive at a word like mutiny think that Shakespeare isn’t talking about a literal mutiny (though he might be) but something that is like a mutiny. What are mutinies like, not in cause but in deed. When Shakespeare starts talking about “atomies” he has no knowledge or Bohr or QM, but we know that atoms are really small. When Mercutio mentions Crickets bone… well, Crickets don’t have bones but if they did they would be small.
Shakespeare’s scribes weren’t writing an API for you to extract the plot out of. It’s a lot fuzzier than that.
> Part of the magic of communication is deliberate double meaning. It is not a well defined API.
In order to appreciate a double meaning, I'd have to have enough basis of understanding to even be able to recognize it.
> As someone with a disability who teaches computer science to students with disabilities (and without), your problems reading Shakespeare do not sound like those of people that come to mind when I read the term “regular person”.
I don't have any particular diagnosis, but I wouldn't be surprised if I could get one. In any case, I'm just out here operating in regular society. I don't seem to have any particular problems communicating in English anyway, as far as I can tell.
> If one is going to attempt to parse every word in the play and believes that it is the only way to follow the plot then one is going to have a bad time.
I don't believe it is the only way. Most written material, like your post here, I'm able to digest chunks at a time. I just don't understand any of the chunks in Shakespeare.
> If you could get to the Queen Mab speech reading that way then you’d probably melt at that point.
I can read words, but at no point do I ever achieve comprehension in this type of material. If Queen Mab's speech consists of words, I wouldn't even notice a difference.
> When you arrive at a word like mutiny think that Shakespeare isn’t talking about a literal mutiny (though he might be) but something that is like a mutiny.
I don't think I can tell the difference between over-thinking it, and under-thinking it.
My dictionary didn't have that definition in it. My best guess about what was meant was that the two houses each had internal struggles, which is more consistent with the only definitions of "mutiny" I've ever known. Also, it seems to be more consistent with taking a break from the feud.
But now "I'm parsing every word again". When I encounter difficult material, I just don't know any other way to approach it.
100% it’s over thinking it.
The double meaning is an instructive example. You can’t know about the double meaning a priori. It’s foreshadowing.
It’s a play from a time when there was no television. No radio. No internet. People would have seen it multiple times and not expected to understand everything during their first watch. Shakespeare straight up invents words.
Mutiny in this case means as defined above. An old grudge is boiling over. Note that it is highly unlikely for the grudge to literally be ancient how I would think of that word today.
“Civil blood” Is a double meaning a reference to the prestige of the families and brings into contrast their incivility in their vendetta. Part of the magic of communication is deliberate double meaning. It is not a well defined API.
As someone with a disability who teaches computer science to students with disabilities (and without), your problems reading Shakespeare do not sound like those of people that come to mind when I read the term “regular person”.
If one is going to attempt to parse every word in the play and believes that it is the only way to follow the plot then one is going to have a bad time. If you could get to the Queen Mab speech reading that way then you’d probably melt at that point.
My suggested way forward is to not attempt to think definitionally about words that are used in a manner you cannot understand. When you arrive at a word like mutiny think that Shakespeare isn’t talking about a literal mutiny (though he might be) but something that is like a mutiny. What are mutinies like, not in cause but in deed. When Shakespeare starts talking about “atomies” he has no knowledge or Bohr or QM, but we know that atoms are really small. When Mercutio mentions Crickets bone… well, Crickets don’t have bones but if they did they would be small.
Shakespeare’s scribes weren’t writing an API for you to extract the plot out of. It’s a lot fuzzier than that.
[1] https://www.oed.com/dictionary/mutiny_n?tab=meaning_and_use