Shakespeare’s
verse is not written in iambic pentameter. Apologies if that comes as
something of a shock. It is written in irregular verse with a
predominant iambic pulse, which is something rather different.
The
key to understanding formal verse structures is the foot. The foot is
a unit of rhythm usually containing a stressed syllable and one or
possibly two unstressed syllables.
The
word going
is stressed on the go
and not stressed on the ing.
Try stressing the ing and people will look at you strangely. Tomorrow
has three syllables. Unstressed to,
stressed mo,
and an unstressed row.
Again, putting the stresses in the wrong place will get you funny
looks.
Stresses
are obvious enough in the pronunciation of words, but we also stress
some words and not others, depending on our meaning.
In
a sentence such as I
am going to the shops,
it would be normal to stress the go
in going and shops.
To put the stresses on these words would suggest that a person is
informing a friend or partner that they’re just nipping down to the
Spar for some milk. To stress any of the other words would imbue the
sentence with other slightly less ordinary meanings.
I
am
going to the shops (you are not)
I
AM
going to the shops. (Don’t try to stop me)
I
am going TO
the shops. (Not away from them)
I
am going to THE
shops.
(The only important shops around)
Sometimes,
as a parting shot in an argument for instance, we might stress alot
of syllables.
I
am GOING.
TO. THE. SHOPS.
So
the stress we place on words in sentences has a vast impact on their
meaning and nuances. Get the emphasis wrong and it could impact an
the entire scene. Shakespeare’s work is so subtextually rich that
misunderstanding stresses can lead to disastrous results for both
actors and the audience.
Generally
we don’t place stresses in sentences on the little joining up
words. The the’s
and the ands
and the to’s.
But
then again, just occasionally, it is vital to do so get our meaning
across. Is that THE
Mick
Jagger?
So
in theatrical renditions of Shakespeare, how do we know what words to
stress and what not to stress? This brings us back to feet and the
iambic pentameter.
Formal
verse is made up of lines with a certain number of feet.
Tetrameter
has four feet in a verse
Pentameter
has five feet in a verse
Heaxameter
has six feet and so on.
A
verse written in pentameter will therefore have five units (five
feet) of rhythm. Each of the five feet will have a stressed syllable,
and one or two unstressed syllables. And here I must become a verse
chiropodist for a few moments.
In
Shakespearean verse, there are, for the most part, four different
types of foot. These are known by quite tiresome and offputting
names, easy to skip and, to the brain, a chore to assimilate. But
they are worth the effort. You probably know the first already. So
that’s only three to take in.
Iambic
–
a two syllable foot which goes di-dum
and forms an unstressed word or syllable and a stressed syllable. Ie
Disgust.
Remorse.
Trochee
– which goes dum-di.
A
stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable. Ie Rotten.
Ballcock.
Anapest
–
a three syllable foot, which goes di-di-dum.
Ie Decongest
Dactyl
-
a three syllable foot,which goes dum-di-di
- Ie
Interplay.
Selfishly.
Just
occasionally, to keep us on our toes, a poet might also throw in a
monosyllabic foot – ie a foot of one stressed beat, such as the
word Two
at the beginning of the Romeo
and Juliet prologue.
Two
Households,
both
alike
in dignity.
Shakespearean
verse uses all these different kinds of feet, mixing them up to get
varied and interesting rhythms. As Shakespeare was attempting to hold
the mirror up to nature, he wanted to mimic normal speech patterns as
far as possible within the constraints of formal verse. Whilst, as I
have said, there may be a predominant iambic pulse, he did not
slavishly stick to iambic beats. That would produce an unnatural and
robotic sound that is neither poetic to the ear, nor anything like
real speech. So Shakespeare regularly threw trochees, anapests and
dactyls into the mix. This is easy to check. A strictly iambic line
would have only ten syllables in it. So, what of Theseus’ lines in
Midsummer Night’s Dream:
I
must confess, that I have heard so much,
And
with Demetrius thought to have spoke thereof:
The
first line has ten syllables and so could be iambic, (though it
isn’t). The second line has eleven syllables, so it cannot be
iambic. Even allowing for the four syllables of Demetrius to be
compacted into three syllables, there is still an extra unstressed
syllable somewhere
And
with Demetrius thought to have spoke thereof:
Spoken
as strict iambic pentameter this last line would come out:
And
with
Demetrius
thought
to
have
spoke thereof:
This
is rhythmically ugly and stressing the ‘have’
is nonsensical from the point of view of meaning. Also we would not
normally stress the ‘there’
in ‘thereof’.
Treated
as irregular verse it might run:
And
with
Demetrius
thought
to have spoke
thereof:
All
I have done here, is put the five stresses I know to be there, where
a speaker would normally place them, given the context of the play.
Simply, there is an anapest on the fourth foot ie ‘to
have spoke’
The
first line is also interesting. Ten syllables, but spoken as iambic
pentameter, I
must confess, that I have heard so much,
comes out as:
I
must
confess,
that I
have heard
so
much,
From
Theseus' point of view there is no sense in stressing the second ‘I’.
The sentence makes more sense spoken with the stresses thus:
I
must
confess,
that I have
heard so
much,
This
makes the third stress an anapest - di-di-dum
- that I have,
followed
by a monosyllabic beat
-
heard.
So
in interpreting Shakespeare's meaning, it is probably not productive
to read the lines as strict iambic pentameter. You will be getting
your trochees in a tangle if you do. Not to mention your dactyls and
anapests. You might sometimes, find interesting interpretations by
stressing iambs, since Shakespearean verse does have alot of them.
But you will make more discoveries by paying attention to the likely
stresses of the feet in the context of the play and local meaning of
the lines.
There’s
a little bit of diverting detective work in this. Take a line from a
little further down Theseus’ speech:
I
have some private schooling for you both.
There
are ten syllables with five stresses in all likelihood. The ‘ing
in schooling cannot possibly be stressed. So that narrows down the
five stresses to nine possible candidates. An iambic reading of this
line would be:
I
have
some private
schooling
for
you both.
If
I were to say this line naturalistically (ie not in verse), and
without any of the context of the scene, I would stress the line:
I
have
some
private
schooling
for you both.
But
that would leave only four beats. This does sometimes happen in
Shakespearean pentameter, but not often and usually only for a strong
reason. Yet the fourth stress spoken as an iamb is unconvincing. Why
stress ‘for’?
Spoken naturalistically it seems clumsy. So I would look at some
other contenders for that missing stress. Both ‘I’
and
‘have’
could possibly be made to work as stresses. It would then perhaps
mean Theseus had just come up with a bright idea that he wanted to
impart to Egeus and Demetrius. But the most likely stress is on the
‘you,’
so the line would run:
I
have
some
private
schooling
for you
both.
Which
would give the sense of an impending paternalistic lecture.
This
detective work is absorbing and the actor will find Shakespeare’s
lines, when explored as irregular verse, more revelatory than casting
about for meaning in an iambic rhythm that isn't actually there. Take
Lysander’s line, half a page on after Theseus’ exit.
Or
else misgraffed, in respect of years.
It
is a nine-syllable line which suggests a lurking monosyllabic foot.
The second half of the line cannot be read as iambic without falling
over itself.
Or
else
mis/graffed,
in respect
of
years.
There
appear to be only four obvious stresses that work.
Or
else
mis/graffed,
in respect
of
years.
But
the fifth stress is the mis
in
misgraffed, The monosyllabic foot, putting two stresses in
misgraffed,
then suggests that Lysander is extremely impassioned in his speech.
Or
else
mis/graffed,
in respect
of years.
Take
Orlando’s lines from As
You Like It –
Act I scene II,.
‘I
am more proud to be Sir Rowland’s son,
His
youngest son, and would not change that calling
To
be adopted heir to Frederick.’
The
final line is ten syllables only if you pronounce Frederick,
Fred-er-rick
as
opposed to Fred-rick.
An iambic reading leaves a stress thus:
To
be
adopted
heir
to Frederick.’
The
last stress will end on rick.
Nobody stresses the rick.
It must then be the case that the stresses fall elsewhere. Not the To
at
the beginning. That would make even less sense. But the to
in the middle would give an angry feel to the rhythm.
To
be
adopted
heir
to
Frederick.’
A
further drawback with treating Shakespearean verse as strictly iambic
is that it will make the actor sound like a robot or a terrible bore.
Or a rock drummer playing in swing time. Stylishly monotonous.
Shakespeare’s verse is more like jazz drumming which can miss beats
and put in odd fills whilst still keeping time overall. This is also
of course, what real speech sounds like. My advice to an actor
interested in delivering Shakespeare’s verse would be to get used
to speaking in feet rather than iambs, and even better, in five beat
lines. But, despite all of the above, I would also say to an actor,
that it's not actually essential to understand the mechanics of
verse, so long as you are in character, comprehend the context of the
scene and mean what you say. Shakespeares verse, if you play the play
as it was intended, will actually look after itself. Let me bring in
Humpty Dumpty.
Humpty
Dumpty
sat
on a wall
Humpty
Dumpty
had
a great fall
All
the
King’s horses
and
all
the kings men
Couldn’t
put Humpty
together
again.
It’s
a great bit of verse. The trochaic beat on Humpty and Dumpty giving a
strong sense of how heavy Humpty is. Helped by associations with
Dumplings and humps. The third line is written in galloping dactyls
suggestive of hooves. I always think it was made up by a medieval mum
bouncing her chubby baby on the bed. It’s inspired. Now, let us
dramatise the verse. Imagine you are a friend of Humpty Dumpty who
has just seen his demise, and that you meet a friend or friends of
Humpty and have to recount to them Humpty’s misfortune.
Humpty
Dumpty sat ...(Pause,
whilst you struggle to articulate to the friends the foolhardy nature
of Humpty in sitting on a wall – they obviously know how fragile
Humpty was.)
...on a wall.
Humpty
Dumpty ...(It’s
almost too distressing to tell them about the next bit.) ...Had
a great fall.
All
the King’s horses and ...(Pause
whilst you sadly shake your head) ...All
the King’s men,
Couldn’t
(Sob)
Put Humpty (Sob)
together (sniffle)
Again.
Despite
the natural pauses one might put in this recounting of Humpty’s
accident, the verse remains perfectly in rhythm. It’s so clearly
written and robust it’s hard to break the meaning. For who would
stress the ‘on’
of
the first line? It would mean that Humpty sat on the wall as opposed
to off
it.
And besides would strike the ear with a great ugliness. Who would
stress the ‘a’
before great fall? There would be no reason to. If you are clear
about the meaning of Humpty it’s fairly difficult to step out of
the verse. To do so merely destroys what it is saying. So the notion
that you cannot stop or pause in the middle of a verse line is
nonsense. It might be extremely important to do so to put over the
meaning of of the writing as it was intended. If a verse is well
written (and I think we’re all agreed that Shakespeare's is), then the rhythm of the verse is pretty indestructible if
you say it in character, in context and meaning what you say. The
verse can probably only be destroyed if it is not properly
understood. Actors and directors have got hold of a notion that verse
is written in a sort 19th century romantic cadence. A kind of verbal
knitting, in which one purls off at the end of a line with never a
dropped stitch (or aitch) A soothing la-di-da sing-song, which
totally destroys the vitality of the language and the meaning of the
words. Take Gielgud’s prologue from Romeo
and Juliet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6467brmAwrU
The
stresses are pretty much in order, but you can hear this deadening
approach to verse in his voice, stripping the blood and thunder of
the words, which are vivid and telling, to something that wouldn’t
stir porridge. I’m not being iconoclastic here. I know it was the
70’s, and I believe Gielgud was a great actor in his way. But the
misconception that verse is ‘beautiful thing’ that must be said
‘beautifully’ and in perfect time that must be kept preciously
unbroken, like waves lapping on a shore, or it isn’t verse, is not
true. Moreover it leads actors to kill what the verse is about. If
you are in character, and you say your lines truthfully, as the
person in that situation would, you will not be very far, in terms of
stresses and beats, from the way that Shakespeare intended the words
to be spoken. And you will therefore be perfectly inside the verse,
however much you stretch it about.
http://www.woodenotheatrecourse.com/
http://www.woodenotheatrecourse.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment