Pronunciation of Iago
Tom Reedy
about this say it is "E-ah-go," three syllables (which allows for a modern
auditor to hear "ego"). Even the online Webster's pronouncing dictionary
agrees with that, but I maintain that it is "Jay-go," two syllables. Three
syllables ruins the meter. Anybody know of an authoritative source?
TR
Tom Reedy
news:PB2Na.23969$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I'll be damned; I'm right. After I posted I searched Google using keywords
'pronunciation' and 'iago,' and this is what turned up:
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/vastavox/2002-January/000118.html
TR
Greg Reynolds
"Yah-go" accommodates the name beginning with an I (a J) and it slurs
three syllables into two. Good question because the meter needs two as
you said....
My life upon her faith! honest Iago, Othello: I, iii
Never, Iago: like to the pontic sea, Othello: III, iii
Were I the moor, I would not be Iago: Othello: I, i
Iachimo in CYM offers the same choice. I would say "Yah-ke-mo" but
I've heard Jack-ee-mo. People who prefer E-ah-go for Iago probably
like E-ah-ke-mo for Iachimo. But checking the meter, the three syllables
fit ...
Under the conduct of bold Iachimo, Cymbeline: IV, ii
Speak, Iachimo: I had you down and might Cymbeline: V, v
I false! thy conscience witness: Iachimo, Cymbeline: III, iv
Greg Reynolds
(I thought you were rereading the plays in chronological order
--you're a fast reader!)
Greg Reynolds
But how does Amy Stoller order a Jagermeister? Hmmm?
Patty Winter
Tom Reedy <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:PB2Na.23969$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> What is the correct pronunciation of Iago? Most people I have talked to
>> about this say it is "E-ah-go," three syllables (which allows for a modern
>> auditor to hear "ego"). Even the online Webster's pronouncing dictionary
>> agrees with that, but I maintain that it is "Jay-go," two syllables.
>
>'pronunciation' and 'iago,' and this is what turned up:
>
>http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/vastavox/2002-January/000118.html
?? That discussion is about the name "Jago," not "Iago." Someone even
mentions the recent PBS production of a contemporary update of "Othello"
in which one of the characters is named Ben Jago.
Patty
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Tom Reedy" reed...@earthlink.net
>Date: 7/3/2003
>What is the correct pronunciation of Iago? ... Anybody know of an
authoritative source?
HLAS archives? Grummaning today, I'll simply guess along. Your research led
ultimately to this: "According to the BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British
Names, the name is pronounced JAY-go."
Iago is a British name? Like Coriolanus? I think, from what I know of Spanish
vowel pronunciation:
"AH, A, EE, O, OO,
El burro sabe mas que tu..."
"I", pronounced "EE", is part of a diphthong wherein the "a" is pronounced
"AH." I think it's a combo of both yours - two syllables, with a "YAH" sound:
"Yah-go." Even if the "I" represents a "J", as it might, your long "a" is out
of the game. In Spain.
'Course the name looks Italian, which, though seemingly similar to Spanish, is
Greek to me. What the hell. Ask Iachimo.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
John W. Kennedy
There probably is some justification for "jay-go"; English used to be
very careless of foreign names (cf. "jee-zuss"). However, as we are no
longer so careless, I think an elided yah-go will do. No Italian would
normally pronounce it as a full three syllables, anyway.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams: "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Peter Groves
news:3F04BFD1...@core.com...
"Yack-ee-mo" indeed fits the metre, but two syllabled "Iago" will ruin it
every time (note: it's not just a question of counting syllables). To scan
it must have three syllables, with stress on the second (ee-YAH-go,
eye-YAY-go, or whatever):
"That thou | Ia|go, who | hast had | my purse
Peter G.
Tom Reedy
news:20030703210218...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >Subject: Pronunciation of Iago
> >From: "Tom Reedy" reed...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 7/3/2003
>
> >What is the correct pronunciation of Iago? ... Anybody know of an
> authoritative source?
>
> HLAS archives? Grummaning today, I'll simply guess along. Your research
led
> ultimately to this: "According to the BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of
British
> Names, the name is pronounced JAY-go."
>
> Iago is a British name?
It's in a British play, so it must be, right?
One source I found (P. H. Reaney, *A Dictionary of British Surnames* 2nd
ed., Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976) says the Cornish Jago and the Welsh Iago
mean 'James.' Another traced the name from the Hebrew Yaákob to the Greek
Iákobos to the Latin Jácomus, which became Jámos and then to the English
James. The Hebrew and Greek mutated across other Romance languages to become
Iago, so St. James is St. Iago in Spanish, for whom Santiago, the capitol
city of Chile, is named for, as well as San Diego, Ca.
> Like Coriolanus?
Exactly so! Paul Crowley no doubt could tell you stories about why
Shakespeare chose him to write about. Whether you'd want to hear them is a
different matter.
> I think, from what I know of Spanish
> vowel pronunciation:
>
> "AH, A, EE, O, OO,
> El burro sabe mas que tu..."
>
> "I", pronounced "EE", is part of a diphthong wherein the "a" is pronounced
> "AH." I think it's a combo of both yours - two syllables, with a "YAH"
sound:
> "Yah-go." Even if the "I" represents a "J", as it might, your long "a" is
out
> of the game. In Spain.
>
> 'Course the name looks Italian, which, though seemingly similar to
Spanish, is
> Greek to me. What the hell. Ask Iachimo.
Serously, I'm not interested in how the Spanish or the Greeks or the Romans
would have pronounced it. I found the history of the name and how it mutated
across languages (which makes me wonder if written language influences
pronunciation across languages). I wanted to know how it would be pronounced
by Shakespeare. As I said, three syllabled "E-ah-go" spoils the meter.
TR
> Lorenzo
> "Mark the music."
>
Peter Groves
news:Tl5Na.14133$5h.47...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
I take a professional interest in this (my research is on metre) and I'm
interested to know who else thinks it's OK (metrically speaking) to give
"Iago" two syllables in the play. These are the first dozen verse
occurrences of the word (note that final trochees are vanishingly rare in
Shakespeare's --or anybody's--verse, whereas "feminine endings" are
reasonably common):
That thou (Iago) who hast had my purse,
Were I the Moore, I would not be Iago (producing a final trochee)
As this that I haue reach'd. For know Iago, (producing a final trochee)
My life vpon her faith. Honest Iago, (producing a final double trochee)
'Tis one Iago, Auncient to the Generall.
Left in the conduct of the bold Iago, (producing a final trochee)
Let it not gaule your patience (good Iago) (producing a final trochee)
In mine owne comforts. I prythee, good Iago, (producing a final trochee)
Iago, hath direction what to do.
Will I looke to't. / Iago, is most honest:
Welcome Iago: we must to the Watch.
Honest Iago, that lookes dead with greeuing,
So far we have:
Tom Reedy
Greg Reynolds
John Kennedy
whoever directed the PBS production mentioned by Roger Gross
Peter G.
Peter Farey
John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > >
> > > What is the correct pronunciation of Iago? Most people I have talked
to
> > > about this say it is "E-ah-go," three syllables (which allows for a
modern
> > > auditor to hear "ego"). Even the online Webster's pronouncing
dictionary
> > > agrees with that, but I maintain that it is "Jay-go," two syllables.
Three
> > > syllables ruins the meter. Anybody know of an authoritative source?
> > >
> > > TR
> >
> >
> > I'll be damned; I'm right. After I posted I searched Google using
keywords
> > 'pronunciation' and 'iago,' and this is what turned up:
> >
> >
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/vastavox/2002-January/000118.html
>
> There probably is some justification for "jay-go"; English used to be
> very careless of foreign names (cf. "jee-zuss"). However, as we are no
> longer so careless, I think an elided yah-go will do. No Italian would
> normally pronounce it as a full three syllables, anyway.
I'm amazed. There is no doubt whatsoever that Shakespeare
intended the name to be be pronounced with three syllables,
the stress being on the second. The second line of the play
makes this perfectly clear:
"Tush, never tell me! I take it much unkindly
That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse
As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this."
And how does anyone imagine that it would be said in any
of the following? This is iambic pentameter, remember?
"'Tis one Iago, ensign to the general."
"Iago hath direction what to do,"
"Welcome, Iago. We must to the watch."
"For she had eyes and chose me. No, Iago,"
"Witness that here Iago doth give up..."
"O damned Iago! O inhuman dog!"
"Honest Iago hath ta'en order for 't."
"Perchance, Iago, I will ne'er go home."
"'Tis pitiful. But yet Iago knows"
"After long seeming dead, Iago hurt him,"
Whether the stressed syllable is pronounced as the 'a'
in 'farmer' or 'baker' I don't know for sure, but I would
find it very strange to hear 'Gonzago' (for example)
pronounced 'Gonzaygo', and would expect Iago to have
rhymed with that name.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Tom Reedy
news:a_7Na.2126$oN.9...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Evidently I'm ignorant of all but the basic idea of meter. Could you give us
a condensed lesson?
TR
Peter Groves
news:be347u$fhr$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > > Tom Reedy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What is the correct pronunciation of Iago? Most people I have talked
> to
> > > > about this say it is "E-ah-go," three syllables (which allows for a
> modern
> > > > auditor to hear "ego"). Even the online Webster's pronouncing
> dictionary
> > > > agrees with that, but I maintain that it is "Jay-go," two syllables.
> Three
> > > > syllables ruins the meter. Anybody know of an authoritative source?
> > > >
> > > > TR
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll be damned; I'm right. After I posted I searched Google using
> keywords
> > > 'pronunciation' and 'iago,' and this is what turned up:
> > >
> > >
> http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/vastavox/2002-January/000118.html
> >
> > There probably is some justification for "jay-go"; English used to be
> > very careless of foreign names (cf. "jee-zuss"). However, as we are no
> > longer so careless, I think an elided yah-go will do. No Italian would
> > normally pronounce it as a full three syllables, anyway.
>
> I'm amazed.
I'm glad that someone else finds it amazing. Personally i find it somewhat
alarming. C S Lewis said back in 1960 "We are coming to acquiesce in a
hair-raising degree of ignorance on this subject [metre]" (I don't have the
reference to hand).
Peter G.
Peter Farey
Peter Groves wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> So far we have:
>
> Tom Reedy
> Greg Reynolds
> John Kennedy
> whoever directed the PBS production mentioned by Roger Gross
>
> Peter G.
As I think I made clear before I read what you had to say,
Peter, please include me out!
Tom Reedy
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:be347u$fhr$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > I'm amazed.
>
> I'm glad that someone else finds it amazing. Personally i find it
somewhat
> alarming. C S Lewis said back in 1960 "We are coming to acquiesce in a
> hair-raising degree of ignorance on this subject [metre]" (I don't have
the
> reference to hand).
>
> Peter G.
The reason I asked is because I wanted to know. I didn't mean to alarm
anyone (although I wonder how ignorance of metrical knowledge poses a hazard
to survival). For a short period in my life I knew just enough about rhythm
and meter to appear knowledgeable to those who knew absolutely nothing, but
I have long since forgotten most of that.
Fortunately, I have never been shy about making an ass out of myself in
public, so I asked the question because I wanted to know, as I stated
earlier. What got me thinking that it was pronounced Jay-go was the surname
of a prominent family in the area I live, Jagoe. Couple that with the
interchangeableness of I and J, and I thought it might be pronounced so.
Apparently so does whoever edited the *BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British
Names,* published by Oxford University Press.
TR
A Tsar Is Born
"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message
news:be2gm8$lmp$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
> ?? That discussion is about the name "Jago," not "Iago." Someone even
> mentions the recent PBS production of a contemporary update of "Othello"
> in which one of the characters is named Ben Jago.
"Ben Jago" ?
He's Jewish?
Jean Coeur de Lapin
A Tsar Is Born
> like E-ah-ke-mo for Iachimo.
I've always heard (and thought) three syllables for Ya-ke-mo (sounds like a
town in Washington state, and the Indian tribe appertaining thereto), but
I've also always heard (and thought) Ee-ya-go.
The Spanish, of course, is two syllables except when "Sant-" is prefaced to
it.
Perhaps I'm most used to it when sung in Italian.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Peter Groves
Sorry, Tom, I wrote this before I saw your reply. I'll have a go at
what you ask.
Peter G.
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Groves wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > I'm amazed.
> >
> > I'm glad that someone else finds it amazing. Personally i
> > find it somewhat alarming. C S Lewis said back in 1960
> > "We are coming to acquiesce in a hair-raising degree of
> > ignorance on this subject [metre]" (I don't have the
> > reference to hand).
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> The reason I asked is because I wanted to know. I didn't mean
> to alarm anyone (although I wonder how ignorance of metrical
> knowledge poses a hazard to survival). For a short period in
> my life I knew just enough about rhythm and meter to appear
> knowledgeable to those who knew absolutely nothing, but I
> have long since forgotten most of that.
>
> Fortunately, I have never been shy about making an ass out of
> myself in public, so I asked the question because I wanted to
> know, as I stated earlier. What got me thinking that it was
> pronounced Jay-go was the surname of a prominent family in
> ness of I and J, and I thought it might be pronounced so.
> Apparently so does whoever edited the *BBC Pronouncing
> Dictionary of British Names,* published by Oxford University
> Press.
>
> TR
To be honest, my expression of amazement was addressed far
more to John W.Kennedy, whom I have always thought of as
having a pretty good knowledge of, and ear for, metre.
I do nevertheless, without any sense of superiority, find it
difficult to comprehend how anyone can have a love of Shake-
speare without also having a *feel* for the rhythm in which
so much of it is written. I just don't get it.
Tom Reedy
"Pretty good" is not perfect. I'm sure John just fired off a reply without
looking anything up, as we are all wont to do from time to time.
> I do nevertheless, without any sense of superiority, find it
> difficult to comprehend how anyone can have a love of Shake-
> speare without also having a *feel* for the rhythm in which
> so much of it is written. I just don't get it.
>
>
> Peter F.
> pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
I daresay that most Shakespeare lovers are not so concerned with meter and
rhythm that they know the technicalities of it, even though they probably
have a "feel" for it, just as probably most music lovers don't read music,
even though they can appreciate harmony. Not having any actor training, it's
not at all clear to me sometimes which syllable is accented in a foot, but I
can instinctively tell when the rhythm of a sentence I've written is awkward
and needs work.
Having said all that to excuse my own ignorance, have a happy Iuly 4th!
TR
John W. Kennedy
Sorry. Othello isn't one of the ones that I carry around in my head
(perhaps because I've actually performed in the Boito/Verdi between the
last time I saw the play and now), and I carelessly took for granted the
correctness of the statement that two syllables fit better. These lines
do indeed seem to favor three.
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> I daresay that most Shakespeare lovers are not so concerned with
> meter and rhythm that they know the technicalities of it, even
> though they probably have a "feel" for it, just as probably most
> music lovers don't read music, even though they can appreciate
> harmony. Not having any actor training, it's not at all clear to
> me sometimes which syllable is accented in a foot, but I can
> instinctively tell when the rhythm of a sentence I've written is
> awkward and needs work.
>
> Having said all that to excuse my own ignorance, have a happy
> Iuly 4th!
Oh I did! Thanks, Tom, and I hope that yours will be fun too.
One or two points to get clear, however. I have not had 'actor
training', although both my step-father and son have. My own
exposure to this stuff has been either from learning about it at
school to pass exams (ugh!), performing in it. or reading about
it for myself out of interest.
Your analogy with music is a good one, however. I do not 'read'
music (at least not in the sense that you mean, I think) but I
certainly do experience discomfort when either the notes or the
rhythm sound 'wrong', don't you? Similarly, I become extremely
uncomfortable when I hear an actor getting the metre wrong in
a speech of Shakespeare's. It has nothing (that I am aware of)
to do with what you call "the technicalities of it", and every-
thing to do with how I *feel* when I hear it.
And the only 'technicality' I know (or need to know) is that an
iambic pentameter goes di-dum-di-dum-di-dum-di-dum-di-dum, with
an extra 'di' tagged on at the end from time to time, and some
sort of permission for the poet to muck about with it a bit if
he wishes, and if it still sounds OK.
I hope you understand.
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> Tom Reedy wrote:
>>
>> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>> > >
>> > > What is the correct pronunciation of Iago? Most people I have talked
>to
>> > > about this say it is "E-ah-go," three syllables (which allows for a
>modern
>> > > auditor to hear "ego"). Even the online Webster's pronouncing
>dictionary
>> > > agrees with that, but I maintain that it is "Jay-go," two syllables.
>Three
>> > > syllables ruins the meter. Anybody know of an authoritative source?
>> > >
>> > > TR
>> >
>> >
>> > I'll be damned; I'm right. After I posted I searched Google using
>keywords
>> > 'pronunciation' and 'iago,' and this is what turned up:
>> >
>> >
>http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/vastavox/2002-January/000118.html
>>
>> There probably is some justification for "jay-go"; English used to be
>> very careless of foreign names (cf. "jee-zuss"). However, as we are no
>> longer so careless, I think an elided yah-go will do. No Italian would
>> normally pronounce it as a full three syllables, anyway.
>
>I'm amazed.
I'm amazed that you don't know the difference between prose and
verse.
>There is no doubt whatsoever that Shakespeare
>intended the name to be be pronounced with three syllables,
>the stress being on the second. The second line of the play
>makes this perfectly clear:
>
> "Tush, never tell me! I take it much unkindly
> That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse
> As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this."
This section, like many others in the play which have dialogue
between Iago and his confederates, is in prose. Some words,
the ones that I've bracketed, aren't in the F1 version. Asterisked
lines don't scan as pentameter:
Rod: [Tush,] never tell me! I take it much unkindly*
That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse
As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this.
Iago: ['Sblood,] but you'll not hear me.*
If ever I did dream of such a matter,
Abhor me.*
Rod. Thou toldst me thou didst hold him in thy hate.
Iago. Despise me if I do not. Three great ones of the city*
In personal suit to make me his lieutenant, {read "personal" as "pers'nal}
Off-capp'd to him; and, by the faith of man,
I know my price, I am worth no worse a place.*
>
>And how does anyone imagine that it would be said in any
>of the following? This is iambic pentameter, remember?
>
> "'Tis one Iago, ensign to the general."
> "Iago hath direction what to do,"
>
> "Welcome, Iago. We must to the watch."
>
> "For she had eyes and chose me. No, Iago,"
>
> "Witness that here Iago doth give up..."
>
> "O damned Iago! O inhuman dog!"
>
> "Honest Iago hath ta'en order for 't."
>
> "Perchance, Iago, I will ne'er go home."
>
> "'Tis pitiful. But yet Iago knows"
>
> "After long seeming dead, Iago hurt him,"
>
"Iago" is one of those words that allows you to go either
way. The "ee" sound at the beginning is elided to either
a greater or lesser extent into the next syllable, and even
in cases where the meter "requires" three syllables, it
still sounds more like "yah-go". There are few lines
in Othello containing "Iago" that sound very good if
the first syllable is drawn out completely, so in effect
the pronounciation is "yah-go", no matter what the
Holofernes of the world say about the meter. Shakespeare's
lines are full of ambiguous syllables, there is an entire chapter
on it in Wright's book "Shakespeare's Metrical Art". For example,
speaking of the words "fires" and "tires" (p. 156):
"Shakespeare usually treats both words as monosyllabic, but
the variability of his practice is evident in this line from Julius
Caesar (3.1.171):
As fire drives out fire, so pity pity
Shakespeare's meter determines that the first "fire" must be
disyllabic; it does not guarantee that the second one will be
pronounced in a way that is unambiguously monosyllabic."
If both "fires" are monosyllabic, you create a line with
final trochee, whereas if the first "fire" is disyllabic, you have
a feminine ending. You could also make the first "fire" monsyllabic
and the second disyllabic, but then you have some strange feet
in the line. But no matter how the accountants divvy up the syllables,
it still sounds good, it sounds like iambic pentameter, even if it
stretches the rules, and that's what Shakespeare does, especially
in his later period. His verse is masterfully varied yet it still retains
the "iambic pentameteroid" feel.
Here's another example of a similar name from the editorial section
of the Oxford edition of "Cymbeline":
"I have followed the principles of this series in
replacing the Folio's 'Iachimo' with its modern
Italian equivalent 'Giacomo', though with some
misgivings, since it imperils the theatrical
impact of an important line. During the furious
soliloquy in which he reacts to his apparent
betrayal, Posthumous refers, in the Folio, to
"This yellow Iachimo' (2.4). The phrase surely
invites a pronounciation which emphasizes the
alliteration -Yellow Yackimo - which is usually
how it is delivered in performance."
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Peter Groves
(a) that he has no ear for verse
(b) that he's *proud* of it, damnit!
(c) tha nobody can't teach him nothing.
Peter G.
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030704181136...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Peter Groves
This is exactly right: there are technicalities, as with music, but our
tacit knowledge of the rules manifests itself as not as rational calculation
but as intuitive judgment or "feeling" about whether something sounds right
or wrong or oddd: this is true of language, of music, and of metre, all
complex rule-systems whose complexity remains hidden from the user who has
internalized the system. Any speaker of English can tell you that "She made
up the story" must become "She made it up" but that "She walked up the
street" cannot become "She walked it up", but few could tell you why (in
terms of a systematic account of the syntax).
Of course, some people never do internalize the pentameter, and thus never
acquire the "feel" for it (it requires some exposure to the metre) -- hence
amateur actors who insist on saying "You did supplant your brother ProsPERo"
or "Now, fair HippoLYTa, our nuptial hour...". This is what alarmed me
about all the posts from intelligent scholarly Shakespeareans, but I now see
that Tom and John have recanted.
Peter G.
Greg Reynolds
> This is what alarmed me
> about all the posts from intelligent
> scholarly Shakespeareans, but I
> now see that Tom and John have recanted.
>
> Peter G.
If you responded to my post instead of
lumping me in a list, I may be interested
in a discussion. Shakespeare is clever.
Greg Reynolds
Peter Groves
As I was saying to Peter F., if you've got the feel then you already have
the technical knowledge, because intuition is the way in which that tacit
knowledge emerges to consciousness. What I've tried to do in my book
<Strange Music> is make explicit dome of these underlying rules; not that
useful to readers but very useful, I suspect, to analysts (Harold Love's new
<Attributing Authorship> recommends my approach for forensic analysis).
I've recently been working on apaper on modern editing of Shakespearre and
I wrote a sort of digest of the theory for it which I reproduce below:
"The linguistic system of scansion I intend to use in this paper is set
forth fully in Groves (Strange Music), but I will need to sketch in some of
its salient features here. Metrical structure in English is produced
through the placement of beats (sometimes known as articulatory stresses) in
the spoken line, and this is enabled and limited by three prosodic
phenomena: by the disposition of lexical and syntactic stress, by the
location of syntactic junctures, and by the speaker's placing of pragmatic
accent within the utterance. The basic metrical pattern or "matrix" of the
iambic pentameter consists of a sequence of ten
syllable-positions, alternately labelled "w[eak]" (non-beat-bearing) and
"S[trong]" (beat-bearing); further rules allow us to derive secondary
patterns or "templates" by exchanging adjacent syllable-positions (provided
the position following the exchanged pair remains in situ, which prohibits
successive or final reversals) or adding an extra weak syllable-position at
the end of the template. To scan a line is to attempt to relate its
prosodic and syntactic structure to one of these templates according to
certain "mapping" rules that permit (for example) any syllables to occupy
"w" positions but only syllables capable of carrying beats ("independent"
syllables, represented by a capital letter) to occupy "S" positions.
Briefly, a stressed syllable (designated in the scansion by either "A"
[lexical stress] or "B" [non-lexical or secondary stress]) will prevent a
beat from falling on an unstressed syllable adjacent to it in the same
syntactic constituent; a syllable so "dominated" will be represented by a
lowercase "o" connected to the dominant syllable by a line. Unstressed
syllables that are not dominated may carry beats and are represented by a
capital "O".
Contrastive or focal accent on a dominated syllable, represented as "O", has
the effect of liberating it and enabling (though not requiring) it to carry
a beat.. Where two lexically stressed syllables are adjacent within the
same syntactic phrase, one will be subordinated ("a") to the other; this
subordinate will most commonly be the preceding one (as in a phrase: Big
Ben, which is "a-A"), or the following one (as in a compound word: pigpen,
which is "A-b").
There are thus two kinds of deviation possible here: if the prosodic base
can only be mapped onto a pattern that is irregularly formed, with
successive or final reversals (as in 7d or 8d below), we call the verse
"irregular" (in braces, {}); if it cannot be mapped onto any derivable
template without matching an o-syllable to an S-position, we term it
"unmetrical" (as in the case of 7a or 8b and 8f) and indicate the failed
mapping by (for ASCII), replacing the S with an X). Linguistic scansion
bears out the intuitions of of Shakespeare's contemporaries: the three
pairs of lines in 8 are instances cited by Gascoigne, Puttenham and Daniel:
respectively of metrical success followed by metrical failure (that
Puttenham pronounced sePULchre is clear from his remark that 1c is "after
the first dactil all Trochaick". Compare "Banish'd this fraile sepulchre of
our flesh", R2 TLN 489.)
1. a. I understand your meaning by your eye.
o-B--o A o----A--o O o--A
w S w S w S w S w S
b. Your meaning I understand by your eye.
o---A---o o-B--o A----O o--A
w S w X{S--w S----w} w S
c. What holie graue alas what fit sepulcher
a---A-o A o-A a---A o-A---o
w S w S w S w S w S o
d. What holie graue (alas) what sepulcher
a---A-o A o-A A o-A---o
w S w S w S {S---w S---w}
e. Though Death doth ruine, Virtue yet preserves.
o----A o----Aö A--o A o-A
w S w Sw S w S w S
f. Though Death doth consume, yet Virtue preserves.
o----A-----O o--A A A--o o-A
w S w X w S S--w w S"
It's probably overkill, but I'll scan some of the examples from <Othello>:
That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse
O _O_ oA-o O o----A o--A
w S wS w S w S w S
Were I the Moor, I would not be Iago:
O _O_ o---A O O O O oA-o
w S w S [w S] [w S]wS x
'Tis one Iago, ancient to the general.
O O oA-o A---o O o--A-ö O
[w S] wS w S w S w S o
Iago hath direction what to do;
oAo A o-A--öo----A o--A
wSw S w S w S w S
Peter G.
Peter Groves
[...}
> Contrastive or focal accent on a dominated syllable, represented as "_O_",
has
> the effect of liberating it and enabling (though not requiring) it to
carry
> a beat..
I was hoping the scansions would be more vertically aligned on the three
rows -- I'm afraid it looks a bit ragged in Outlook Express. But they
should be followable.
Peter G.
Greg Reynolds
> Predictably, Jim Carroll demonstrates
>
> (a) that he has no ear for verse
> (b) that he's *proud* of it, damnit!
> (c) tha nobody can't teach him nothing.
>
> Peter G.
Peter, you'll need to substantiate.
Stay on the subject. Show your work.
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey
"KQKnave" wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > I'm amazed.
>
> I'm amazed that you don't know the difference between prose and
> verse.
I think I do. Generally speaking, it is indicated by the lines
stopping half way across the page, and the next line having an
initial capital, even if it doesn't start a new sentence.
> > There is no doubt whatsoever that Shakespeare
> > intended the name to be be pronounced with three syllables,
> > the stress being on the second. The second line of the play
> > makes this perfectly clear:
> >
> > "Tush, never tell me! I take it much unkindly
> > That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse
> > As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this."
>
> This section, like many others in the play which have dialogue
> between Iago and his confederates, is in prose.
No, you must try to remember the easy way of recognizing verse
that I gave above. See if you can tell whether the printer
thought that the lines were verse in the Quarto:
TVsh, neuer tell me, I take it much vnkindly
That you Iago, who has had my purse,
As if the strings were thine, should'st know of this.
and in the First Folio:
NEuer tell me, I take it much vnkindly
That thou (Iago) who hast had my purse,
As if ye strings were thine, should'st know of this.
See how the lines stop after 'vnkindly' and 'purse' in each
case, and how the next lines start with an initial capital?
You'll find it quite easy once you get used to it.
> Some words, the ones that I've bracketed, aren't in the F1
> version. Asterisked lines don't scan as pentameter:
>
> Rod: [Tush,] never tell me! I take it much unkindly*
Funnily enough, my son played Roderigo in our company's
production. We used the FF wording, and I seem to recall
that he pronounced the "never" as a single syllable "ne'er".
No problem with the Q version, of course.
> That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse
Yep, that's the one we are talking about. Three syllables.
> As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this.
No problem.
> Iago: ['Sblood,] but you'll not hear me.*
> If ever I did dream of such a matter,
> Abhor me.*
> Rod. Thou toldst me thou didst hold him in thy hate.
> Iago. Despise me if I do not. Three great ones of the city*
> In personal suit to make me his lieutenant, {read "personal" as "pers'nal}
> Off-capp'd to him; and, by the faith of man,
> I know my price, I am worth no worse a place.*
Tricky. Here it is in the Quarto:
Iag. S'blood, but you will not heare me.
If euer I did dreame of such a matter, abhorre me.
Rod. Thou toldst me, thou didst hold him in thy hate.
Iag. Despise me if I doe not: three great ones of the Citty
In personall suite to make me his Leiutenant,
Oft capt to him, and by the faith of man,
I know my price, I am worth no worse a place.
and in the First Folio:
Ia. But you'l not heare me. If euer I did dream
Of such a matter, abhorre me.
Rodo. Thou told'st me,
Thou did'st hold him in thy hate. [10]
Iago. Despise me
If I do not. Three Great-ones of the Cittie,
(In personall suite to make me his Lieutenant)
Off-capt to him: and by the faith of man
I know my price, I am worth no worsse a place.
The Oxford editors make it:
IAGO 'Sblood, but you'll not hear me!
If ever I did dream of such a matter, abhor me.
RODERIGO Thou told'st me thou didst hold him in thy hate.
IAGO Despise me
If I do not. Three great ones of the city,
In personal suit to make me his lieutenant,
Off-capped to him; and by the faith of man
I know my price, I am worth no worse a place.
and Honigmann's Arden edition:
IAGO 'Sblood, but you'll not hear me. If ever I did dream
Of such a matter, abhor me.
RODERIGO Thou told'st me
Tho hold'st him in thy hate.
IAGO Despise me
If I do not. Three great ones of the city,
In personal suit to make me his lieutenant,
Off-capped to him, and by the faith of man
I know my price, I am worth no worse a place.
All done as verse, albeit pretty irregular at times.
> > And how does anyone imagine that it would be said in any
> > of the following? This is iambic pentameter, remember?
> >
> > "'Tis one Iago, ensign to the general."
>
> > "Iago hath direction what to do,"
> >
> > "Welcome, Iago. We must to the watch."
> >
> > "For she had eyes and chose me. No, Iago,"
> >
> > "Witness that here Iago doth give up..."
> >
> > "O damned Iago! O inhuman dog!"
> >
> > "Honest Iago hath ta'en order for 't."
> >
> > "Perchance, Iago, I will ne'er go home."
> >
> > "'Tis pitiful. But yet Iago knows"
> >
> > "After long seeming dead, Iago hurt him,"
>
>
> "Iago" is one of those words that allows you to go either
> way.
Not in any of the examples I give above it don't.
> The "ee" sound at the beginning is elided to either
> a greater or lesser extent into the next syllable, and even
> in cases where the meter "requires" three syllables, it
> still sounds more like "yah-go". There are few lines
> in Othello containing "Iago" that sound very good if
> the first syllable is drawn out completely,
I don't know what you mean by "drawn out completely". It
simply has to be voiced sufficiently to provide the weak
syllable required by the verse. It *is* therefore a
separate syllable, making three in all.
> so in effect
> the pronounciation is "yah-go", no matter what the
> Holofernes of the world say about the meter.
Sounds OK to me. Just as long as the "y" of "yah" is
pronounced "ee".
> Shakespeare's
> lines are full of ambiguous syllables, there is an entire
> chapter on it in Wright's book "Shakespeare's Metrical Art".
One of those 'Holofernes' you deride?
> For example,
> speaking of the words "fires" and "tires" (p. 156):
>
> "Shakespeare usually treats both words as monosyllabic,
> but the variability of his practice is evident in this line
> from Julius Caesar (3.1.171):
>
> As fire drives out fire, so pity pity
>
> Shakespeare's meter determines that the first "fire" must be
> disyllabic; it does not guarantee that the second one will be
> pronounced in a way that is unambiguously monosyllabic."
Quite right. Had a weird one like this in my poetry reading
on Thursday, in Barabas's opening soliloquy from "The Jew of
Malta":
But he whose steel-barr'd coffers are cramm'd full,
And all his life-time hath been tired,
Wearying his fingers' ends with telling it,
Would in his age be loath to labour so,
Tie-yer-red?
Elsewhere, Marlowe has both two- and one-syllable uses of
the same word.
> If both "fires" are monosyllabic, you create a line with
> final trochee, whereas if the first "fire" is disyllabic,
> you have a feminine ending. You could also make the first
> "fire" monsyllabic and the second disyllabic, but then you
> have some strange feet in the line. But no matter how the
> accountants divvy up the syllables, it still sounds good,
> it sounds like iambic pentameter, even if it stretches the
> rules, and that's what Shakespeare does, especially in his
> later period. His verse is masterfully varied yet it still
> retains the "iambic pentameteroid" feel.
No argument from me about that.
> Here's another example of a similar name from the editorial
> section of the Oxford edition of "Cymbeline":
>
> "I have followed the principles of this series in
> replacing the Folio's 'Iachimo' with its modern
> Italian equivalent 'Giacomo', though with some
> misgivings, since it imperils the theatrical
> impact of an important line. During the furious
> soliloquy in which he reacts to his apparent
> betrayal, Posthumous refers, in the Folio, to
> "This yellow Iachimo' (2.4). The phrase surely
> invites a pronounciation which emphasizes the
> alliteration -Yellow Yackimo - which is usually
> how it is delivered in performance."
All jolly interesting, but let's get back to Iago, shall we.
I am not for a moment suggesting that the name could not
*on occasion* be reduced to two syllables if the metre so
required. In fact it is not hard to find a few examples
where this might be the case. For example, at 4.2.118-112
EMILIA Alas, Iago, my lord hath so bewhored her,
Thrown such despite and heavy terms upon her,
That true hearts cannot bear it.
DESDEMONA Am I that name, Iago?
IAGO What name, fair lady?
Also at 5.2.159-161, we find:
OTHELLO He, woman.
I say thy husband. Dost understand the word?
My friend, thy husband, honest, honest Iago.
But against these, and maybe three or four others, we
must weigh the nearly forty cases where three syllables
are unquestionably required by the metre. This therefore
is the way Shakespeare normally expected us to pronounce
it.
And certainly never as 'Jay-go' which was what we were in
fact discussing when I joined in with the comment you
responded to above.
Peter Farey
>
<snip>
>
> I am not for a moment suggesting that the name could not
> *on occasion* be reduced to two syllables if the metre so
> required. In fact it is not hard to find a few examples
> where this might be the case. For example, at 4.2.118-112
>
> EMILIA Alas, Iago, my lord hath so bewhored her,
> Thrown such despite and heavy terms upon her,
> That true hearts cannot bear it.
> DESDEMONA Am I that name, Iago?
> IAGO What name, fair lady?
>
> Also at 5.2.159-161, we find:
>
> OTHELLO He, woman.
> I say thy husband. Dost understand the word?
> My friend, thy husband, honest, honest Iago.
P.S. It occurs to me that whereas (I think) Peter G. will
be fairly happy with the second of these, he would still
reject the first as being "unmetrical". If I understand it
right, then his suggested notation is useful in explaining
why I think this. Where, in other words, would he put
(two) 'X's?
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>"KQKnave" wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm amazed.
>>
>> I'm amazed that you don't know the difference between prose and
>> verse.
>
>I think I do. Generally speaking, it is indicated by the lines
>stopping half way across the page, and the next line having an
>initial capital, even if it doesn't start a new sentence.
No, you determine it from the irregular meter. If it were possible
to determine verse simply by the way the printer sets it, there
wouldn't be so many variations in how the printers set it, they
would all set it the same way, but they don't, as you point
out yourself below. Also, given the great deal of prose elswhere
between Roderigo and Iago, it's far more likely that the
opening section should be set as prose as well.
No, it's prose, with some lines, as throughout Shakespeare's
prose passages, that can be thought of as iambic pentameter.
You can rewrite any prose passage as a mix of iambic lines
and "irregular" lines:
Othello 1.3.319 ff (which is set as prose in the Riverside):
Virtue? a fig! 'tis in ourselves that we
are thus or thus. Our bodies are our gardens
to the which our wills are gardeners, so that
etc.
I checked out Orson Welles (1950's) and Fishburne's Othello (1990's).
Both pronounce Iago as "yahgo", except in a couple of instances where it sort
of
sounded like "ee-yah-go", with a faint, quick "ee", but that could be
an auditory illusion because in every case there was some loud
noise in the background at the same time or they were speaking very
softly.
Here is my list of the first 18 min of the Welles version (until I couldn't
stand watching it anymore....) and the first 45 min or so of the Fishburne
version
(which was pretty good). The first name is the name of the character
who speaks the line. Welles rewrote the play considerably:
Welles first 18 min
welles- intro - An ensign named Yahgo
roderigo - how, yahgo?
roderigo - yahgo can I depend on the issue?
cassio - Yahgo
othello - Yahgo, Yahgo, my honest Yahgo
desdemona - good ee-yahgo (maybe; there's a howling wind obscuring the sound)
=======
Fishburne
othello - good yahgo (hard to hear though, he speaks faintly)
roderigo - faint "ee" before "yahgo"
cassio - welcome, yahgo
cassio - good - ee- yahgo (maybe, the ee is again spoken softly)
othello - I charge thee, yahgo
othello - I know, yahgo
othello - yahgo look with care about the town
cassio - my reputation, yahgo (faint "ee" before yahgo)
cassio - goodnight, honest yahgo (another faint "ee" before yahgo)
othello - why of thy thought, yahgo
Peter Groves
My work (most of it available in any university library):
<Strange Music: The Metre of the English Heroic Line>, ELS Monograph Series
74 (Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria, 1998).
"The Chomsky of Grub Street: Edward Bysshe and the Triumph of Classroom
Metrics", Versification: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Literary Prosody 2
(1999)
[http://depts.washington.edu/versif/backissues/vol3/essays/groves.html]
"'Water from the Well': the Transmission and Reception of Chaucer's Metric".
<Parergon> n.s. 17 (2000): 51-73
"What Music Lies in the Cold Print": Larkin's Experimental metric", <Style>
35(2001):703-23
"'Knocking a verse on the head': towards a performance grammar of English
verse." in <Metrum, Rhythmus, Performanz>, ed. Christoph Küper
(Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 2002), 215-228.
Peter Groves
No, you were spot-on the first time: "Iago" is OK as a paroxytone in the
first example because it is preceded by an obligatory intonational break,
making a second foot rversal or trochee (which is the variation you're
noticing: it seems slightly odd because the second foot is the least likely
place to find a reversal, after the last, [a final trochee makes the line
irregular, though not unmetrical and is extremely rare]):
Alas, Iago, my lord hath so bewhored her
o-A| A-o o-A o---A o---A----o
w-S S-w w S w S w S x
Three-syllabled "Iago" would produce an 'epic' caesura (a caesura with an
extra weak syllable) here, which is not uncommon in Shakespeare.
If we take "Am I that name, Iago? / What name, fair lady?" as a single
line, a similar argument applies, though third-foot reversals are less
disruptive.
The point of the notation is to capture the intuitions of sensitive readers
like you: it's *de*scriptive, not *pre*scriptive.
Peter G.
KQKnave
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>I take a professional interest in this (my research is on metre) and I'm
>interested to know who else thinks it's OK (metrically speaking) to give
>"Iago" two syllables in the play.
You do apparently, considering your last post.
Peter Groves
> In article <a_7Na.2126$oN.9...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Peter Groves"
> <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>
> >I take a professional interest in this (my research is on metre) and I'm
> >interested to know who else thinks it's OK (metrically speaking) to give
> >"Iago" two syllables in the play.
>
> You do apparently, considering your last post.
>
>
Yes, on one or two occasions, most which will also admit a trisyllabic
reading (though I admit that I forgot these few instances in <Othello>). No
doubt I should have written "to give 'Iago' two syllables in the play in
most verse-occurrences of the word". I was making a point about the normal
usage, which Tom and others were claiming was disyllabic: Shakespeare (as
you know) likes to play with syncopatable names occasionally, as in "Romeo,
my Cozen Romeo, Romeo." (TLN 751) where the first two "Romeo"s occupy two
positions and the third three, suggesting an instruction to the actor to
shout the last one (he's looking for R.): "Ro-me-oo!".
Peter G.
John W. Kennedy
> Any speaker of English can tell you that "She made
> up the story" must become "She made it up" but that "She walked up the
> street" cannot become "She walked it up", but few could tell you why (in
> terms of a systematic account of the syntax).
And few but professional linguists can explain why it's "the big red
house" and not "the red big house".
KQKnave
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>I was making a point about the normal
>usage, which Tom and others were claiming was disyllabic:
So did the actors in the Orsen Welles and Fishburne Othello.
> Shakespeare (as
>you know) likes to play with syncopatable names occasionally, as in "Romeo,
>my Cozen Romeo, Romeo." (TLN 751) where the first two "Romeo"s occupy two
>positions and the third three, suggesting an instruction to the actor to
>shout the last one (he's looking for R.): "Ro-me-oo!".
What?
Romeo, my cousin Romeo, Romeo
3 3 2
seems just as likely:
RO-me-o MY COUSin ROMeo, ROM-yo with a feminine ending.
Peter Farey
"KQKnave" wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > "KQKnave" wrote:
> >>
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm amazed.
> > >
> > > I'm amazed that you don't know the difference between prose and
> > > verse.
> >
> > I think I do. Generally speaking, it is indicated by the lines
> > stopping half way across the page, and the next line having an
> > initial capital, even if it doesn't start a new sentence.
>
> No, you determine it from the irregular meter. If it were possible
> to determine verse simply by the way the printer sets it, there
> wouldn't be so many variations in how the printers set it, they
> would all set it the same way, but they don't, as you point
> out yourself below. Also, given the great deal of prose elswhere
> between Roderigo and Iago, it's far more likely that the
> opening section should be set as prose as well.
My argument was, naturally, that both of the 17th century printers
and two of today's more respected editors think that it was
intended to be in verse rather than in prose.
Oops, that should have been the other way round, of course.
Funny that nobody has noticed.
No, it is *presented* as verse, which is the point I
was making.
> with some lines, as throughout Shakespeare's
> prose passages, that can be thought of as iambic pentameter.
> You can rewrite any prose passage as a mix of iambic lines
> and "irregular" lines:
S'blood!
OK Jim. Were I ever (God forbid, I'm an actor!) to find myself
directing *Othello*, this is how I would want my actors to
deliver the lines. You will note that, whilst I acknowledge how
excellent the Oxford and Arden editions are in most cases, I
reject the versions that either of them came up with for those
first few lines. What follows is how *I* am fairly sure that
Shakespeare intended it to be said.
RODERIGO Tush, ne'er tell me! I take it much unkindly
That thou Iago (who has had my purse
As if the strings were thine) should'st know of this.
IAGO S'blood!
But you'll not hear me. If I e'er did dream
Of such a matt'r, abhor me!
RODERIGO Thou told'st me
That thou did'st hold him in thy hate.
IAGO Despise me
If I do not! Three great ones of the city,
In pers'nal suit to make me his Lieutenant,
Off-capped to him. And, by the faith of man,
I know my price. I'm worth no worse a place!
This is verse. The original was *meant* to be verse. And if
anyone tries to persuade you otherwise, Jim (even Welles's
ghost or Fishburne) just show them this.
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>This is verse. The original was *meant* to be verse. And if
>anyone tries to persuade you otherwise, Jim (even Welles's
>ghost or Fishburne) just show them this.
>
Nonsense.
Tom Reedy
<snip>
Thanks for this, Peter.
Last night I saw Hamlet, and I paid a lot of attention to meter. I found
that the times when you couldn't understand the actors' lines were the times
they were out of meter. The actor who played Hamlet often accented the wrong
syllables, or rushed them out all unaccented in an attempt to speak more
conversationally, and it very rarely worked. One example I remember, "I
shall not look upon his like again," rushed out so quickly it clacked.
The actor who played Claudius, however, spoke in perfect meter, going to far
as to use alternate pronunciations to fit the meter ('per-SE-ver' instead of
'PER-se-VERE,' for example), and you had no trouble making sense of his
dialogue. Gertrude was good at it, also. Horatio yelled every word, which
incited gratitude in the audience that his role was small.
Fortunately, Hamlet wasn't off that often. I noticed that, excepting his
prose lines, he got off mainly in the four set speeches, I guess in an
attempt to act his own interpretation. He also would sometimes put a quaver
in his voice and use an upward inflection at the end of his lines--to show
indecisiveness?--so that he sometimes sounded more like David Schwimmer as
Ross than Hamlet.
The actress who played Ophelia was blissfully unaware there was even such a
thing as meter, and her lines came out as noise. She sang well, however, and
she was very pretty.
The amazing thing about it all was that after counting meter on and off all
night, my mind was thinking in iambic pentameter. I think I'll have some fun
at work with it.
And speaking of fun, I found an interesting, elementary website called Fun
with Iambic Pentameter at http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~mwh95001/iambic.html
TR
Peter Groves
> In article <dWKNa.3019$oN.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Peter Groves"
> <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>
> >I was making a point about the normal
> >usage, which Tom and others were claiming was disyllabic:
>
> So did the actors in the Orsen Welles and Fishburne Othello.
>
It's a shame, isn't it? But what can you do? You can't even trust the RSC
to get it right nowadays.
> > Shakespeare (as
> >you know) likes to play with syncopatable names occasionally, as in
"Romeo,
> >my Cozen Romeo, Romeo." (TLN 751) where the first two "Romeo"s occupy two
> >positions and the third three, suggesting an instruction to the actor to
> >shout the last one (he's looking for R.): "Ro-me-oo!".
>
> What?
>
> Romeo, my cousin Romeo, Romeo
> 3 3 2
>
> seems just as likely:
>
> RO-me-o MY COUSin ROMeo, ROM-yo with a feminine ending.
>
>
I'm afraid the fact that it seems just as likely to you simply bears out my
original obervation. Unless you're prepared to claim that WS was writing
free verse, as a sort of proto-Whitman, then you must admit there is some
sort of intelligible system to it (you've already done so by dismissing
some lines as unmetrical). What you need to do now is show how my theory
fails to account for that system in terms of th phonology of English:.
Romeo, my cousin Romeo, Romeo
A--öO o--A-o A--öO A--öO
S---w w S w S w S wS
Peter G.
KQKnave
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>> > Shakespeare (as
>> >you know) likes to play with syncopatable names occasionally, as in
>"Romeo,
>> >my Cozen Romeo, Romeo." (TLN 751) where the first two "Romeo"s occupy two
>> >positions and the third three, suggesting an instruction to the actor to
>> >shout the last one (he's looking for R.): "Ro-me-oo!".
>>
>> What?
>>
>> Romeo, my cousin Romeo, Romeo
>> 3 3 2
>>
>> seems just as likely:
>>
>> RO-me-o MY COUSin ROMeo, ROM-yo with a feminine ending.
>>
>>
>
>I'm afraid the fact that it seems just as likely to you simply bears out my
>original obervation.
Which was?
>Unless you're prepared to claim that WS was writing
>free verse, as a sort of proto-Whitman, then you must admit there is some
>sort of intelligible system to it (you've already done so by dismissing
>some lines as unmetrical).
Those aren't the only two choices. Shakespeare's verse is characterized
by the many ways from which he deviates from the iambic norm. That's
one reason why his verse is more interesting than most of his contemporaries.
Shakespeare creates tension in a passage by deviating from the norm,
and then releasing tension by returning to the norm. Therefore, irregular
lines are *neccessary* for his art.
> What you need to do now is show how my theory
>fails to account for that system in terms of th phonology of English:.
I don't need to do any such thing. Your theory fails because it is
the pronunciation of the words that creates the lines, it is not the
arbitrary theory of iambic pentameter that determines pronunciation.
>Romeo, my cousin Romeo, Romeo
>A--öO o--A-o A--öO A--öO
>S---w w S w S w S wS
I should have looked at the entire passage before responding, because it
goes like this:
Ben: Romeo! my cousin Romeo! Romeo!
Mer: He is wise,
And, on my life, has stolen him home to bed.
The "He is wise" is part of the first line. A perfect example of Shakespeare's
verse shading into prose. Now you have to swallow the last syllable of
"cousin", contract "he is" to "he's" and make all the "Romeo"'s disyllabic
to create some kind of iambic pentameter. Likewise, "stolen" has to
be shortened to "stol'n" to make the line "regular". If you want to spend
your life correcting all of Shakespeare's deviations, you'll not only waste
your time, but make it very difficult to understand what the actors are
saying.
KQKnave
(KQKnave) writes:
>Ben: Romeo! my cousin Romeo! Romeo!
>Mer: He is wise,
If you want, you can rationalize this as having 5 trisyllabic feet,
dactyl, amphibrach, dactyl, dactyl, anapest. Then you don't
have to change the pronunciation at all. And would the amphibrach
be an amphibrach, or is "my" stressed enough to make it an
antibacchic? I think you should spend the next 3 years researching
this question, Pete. Be sure to let us know what your results are.
Peter Groves
Jim's' Ten Commandments of Scholarly Debate." The following qualifies
nicely under "4. "My way." Use the straw man, Luke!": "Here's how it goes:
"I've tried their recipe myself. But it was so bad I had to correct its
obvious errors by using skunk droppings instead of raisins and Drano instead
of Crisco. It still tastes like unbelievably mind-boggling bullshit." Try
it! Straw men are a cinch to demolish,
and it always gets the other guy's goat because it makes him look like an
idiot!"
Peter G.
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030706192734...@mb-m02.aol.com...
KQKnave
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>Recently Ward Elliott posted on SHAKSPER a list of what he calls "'Agent
>Jim's' Ten Commandments of Scholarly Debate." The following qualifies
>nicely under "4. "My way." Use the straw man, Luke!": "Here's how it goes:
>"I've tried their recipe myself. But it was so bad I had to correct its
>obvious errors by using skunk droppings instead of raisins and Drano instead
>of Crisco. It still tastes like unbelievably mind-boggling bullshit." Try
>it! Straw men are a cinch to demolish,
>and it always gets the other guy's goat because it makes him look like an
>idiot!"
Elliott's infantile response is typical of him and his responses to
Foster. His number one rule for "scholarly debate" is: "When the other
guy is right, just throw a bunch of irrelevant bs in his face, the more
long-winded the better, and hope nobody notices that you didn't answer
the questions put to you."
richard kennedy
instruction on scholarly debate. There's a center that can't hold
kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote in message news:<20030706230638...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
John W. Kennedy
> I don't need to do any such thing. Your theory fails because it is
> the pronunciation of the words that creates the lines, it is not the
> arbitrary theory of iambic pentameter that determines pronunciation.
That's all very well for Shakespeare's contemporaries, with EMnE as
their native tongue, but poor we, who lack that advantage, must perforce
use means more indirect.
John W. Kennedy
> The actor who played Claudius, however, spoke in perfect meter, going to far
> as to use alternate pronunciations to fit the meter ('per-SE-ver' instead of
> 'PER-se-VERE,' for example), and you had no trouble making sense of his
> dialogue.
As I have mentioned recently in another thread, one eventually comes to
say "MI-lan" and "re-VEN-ue" without even thinking. Same for the
selective use of "-čd".
John W. Kennedy
> My argument was, naturally, that both of the 17th century printers
Judging from the work that goes into a critical edition of any
17th-century play (or even from the work I had to do on the 1728 "Double
Falshood"), I don't know that the notions of 17th-century printers are
worth much in this respect.
> and two of today's more respected editors think that it was
> intended to be in verse rather than in prose.
Mark Steese
<jwk...@attglobal.net>, der news:_noOa.1334$EC6.594428
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net schrieb:
> KQKnave wrote:
>> I don't need to do any such thing. Your theory fails because it is
>> the pronunciation of the words that creates the lines, it is not the
>> arbitrary theory of iambic pentameter that determines pronunciation.
>
> That's all very well for Shakespeare's contemporaries, with EMnE as
> their native tongue, but poor we, who lack that advantage, must
> perforce use means more indirect.
And poets writing metrical verse in English have been adjusting
pronunciation to fit the requirements of scansion for centuries, e.g.,
by varying the final syllable on regular verbs in the preterite tense --
thus, banished might be pronounced "banish'd" or "banish-ed" depending
on its position in the line.
Elizabethan pronunciation, like Elizabethan spelling, was susceptible to
considerable variation, and poets used this to their advantage;
sometimes it is indeed the feet and the meter that determine the
pronunciation.
-Mark
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope
and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope
the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town
till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground
cold cold ground -Tom Waits
John W. Kennedy
> Es war einmal ein Mensch, genannt "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net>, der news:_noOa.1334$EC6.594428
> @news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net schrieb:
>>KQKnave wrote:
>>>I don't need to do any such thing. Your theory fails because it is
>>>the pronunciation of the words that creates the lines, it is not the
>>>arbitrary theory of iambic pentameter that determines pronunciation.
>>That's all very well for Shakespeare's contemporaries, with EMnE as
>>their native tongue, but poor we, who lack that advantage, must
>>perforce use means more indirect.
> And poets writing metrical verse in English have been adjusting
> pronunciation to fit the requirements of scansion for centuries, e.g.,
> by varying the final syllable on regular verbs in the preterite tense --
> thus, banished might be pronounced "banish'd" or "banish-ed" depending
> on its position in the line.
And poets of a later age than Shakespeare were kind enough to spell the
word they way they wanted it pronounced.
Peter Farey
>
> Judging from the work that goes into a critical edition of
> any 17th-century play (or even from the work I had to do on
> the 1728 "Double Falshood"), I don't know that the notions
> of 17th-century printers are worth much in this respect.
I was talking specifically about the printers of the Quarto
edition of *Othello* ("N.O.") and of the First Folio ("Isaac
Iaggard, and Ed, Blount"). A quick glance through each of
these publications shows them far more likely to get such
things right than wrong.
Furthermore, the chances of them being correct in this case
(the second line of *Othello*) are enhanced considerably by
the facts that:
* both of them clearly show it as verse, although differing
in many other ways
* no modern editor that I am aware of has thought fit to
depart from this way of presenting it
* the line itself (provided that 'Iago' is pronounced with
three syllables - as is required throughout the rest of
the play) is in iambic pentameter
* the line before it is in iambic pentameter (with feminine
ending) in F, and in Q if the word "never" is pronounced
"ne'er"
* the line after it is in perfect iambic pentameter
* Jim says it is in prose.
KQKnave
mst...@charter.net (Mark Steese) writes:
>Es war einmal ein Mensch, genannt "John W. Kennedy"
><jwk...@attglobal.net>, der news:_noOa.1334$EC6.594428
>@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net schrieb:
>
>> KQKnave wrote:
>>> I don't need to do any such thing. Your theory fails because it is
>>> the pronunciation of the words that creates the lines, it is not the
>>> arbitrary theory of iambic pentameter that determines pronunciation.
>>
>> That's all very well for Shakespeare's contemporaries, with EMnE as
>> their native tongue, but poor we, who lack that advantage, must
>> perforce use means more indirect.
>
>And poets writing metrical verse in English have been adjusting
>pronunciation to fit the requirements of scansion for centuries, e.g.,
>by varying the final syllable on regular verbs in the preterite tense --
>thus, banished might be pronounced "banish'd" or "banish-ed" depending
>on its position in the line.
>
>Elizabethan pronunciation, like Elizabethan spelling, was susceptible to
>considerable variation, and poets used this to their advantage;
>sometimes it is indeed the feet and the meter that determine the
>pronunciation.
>
Yes, but I was speaking in the context of what Groves is trying
to do, that is, take every irregular line in Shakespeare and torture
the pronunciation of the words until it seems to be perfect iambic
pentameter. It's just another example of the "Shakespeare can do
no wrong" attitude that affects so much Shakespearean scholarship.
Here is George T. Wright on the subject:
"But we cannot ignore those features of Shakespeare's English
that make for syllabic ambiguity in the verse of his plays. This
is much less true for the poems. There, like other poets from
Surrey on, Shakespeare consistently aimed to make his lines
unambiguously decasyllabic, except for some feminine endings
(see Ramsey, Appendix I, 191-208). But in the language he prepared
for the stage, probably to make it sound more like ordinary English
speech, the evidence seems overwhelming that Shakespeare
increasingly cultivated both metrical and syllabic conventions
aimed at making the verbal texture less obviously iambic."
and
"Scholars and editors aware of these syllabic conventions have not
always appreciated their full import for Shakespeare's verse. They
have often proceeded on such assumptions as the following: that
the lines of Shakespeare's text are either metrically "correct" or
metrically deviant; that the syllabic conventions function essentially
as a means by which we can regularize (or "resolve") thousands
of lines; and that for Shakespeare, his actors, and his audience, the
pronunciation cleared up the problem and resolved the metrical
ambiguity one way or the other. Behind such assumptions lie
the further ones that regular verse is best and that the aim of the
critic of Shakespeare is to explain away all apparent metrical
irregularities. For most sensible scholars, the difficulty in doing
this has been the serious implausibility of some of the more extreme
elisions and syncopations (*he was*, *vag'bond*), especially when
the words and phrases in question appear elsewhere unelided and
unsyncopated. The example of Chaucer's ambiguous -e is relevant,
but Shakespeare's practice is far more complex, involving not just
a single phoneme but a wide range of uncertainly sounded syllabic
elements. Iambic pentameter is in large part a syllabic meter, but
its count of syllables, at least in its dramatic (Shakespearean)
form, is both strict and uncertain.
It is evidently meant to be so. In many passages, and in the
late plays often, Shakespeare apparently preferred the number
of syllables to be problematical. As readers, our most appropriate
response is not to decide whether a given cluster of phonemes is
one or two syllables, but to recognize and savor - recognize in
order to savor - their problematical condition."
"Shakespeare's Metrical Art" p150, 154-5
In any case, I haven't heard anyone tell me that they've seen or heard
a production of Othello where "Iago" is pronounced, either always
or even mostly, with three syllables.
Peter Groves
"Bulldog" Jim Carroll, like Elizabeth Weir, has the remarkable ability to
criticize books he's never read. This is so dim-witted and inept an attempt
at constructing a straw man that it's not worth wasting time on. If he
wants to talk about my theories, I suggest he acquaint himself with them
first (the books and articles are available in any university library). But
this is unlikely, since, as the distinguished scholar Professor Brian
Vickers remarked recently on SHAKSPER (8 June 2003), "'Knave' Jim Carroll is
a fake scholar, a vindictive, unscrupulous, xenophobic defender of HIS
Shakespeare canon."
Peter G.
Mark Steese
news:20030712190636...@mb-m20.aol.com schrieb:
[snip]
> Yes, but I was speaking in the context of what Groves is trying
> to do, that is, take every irregular line in Shakespeare and torture
> the pronunciation of the words until it seems to be perfect iambic
> pentameter.
If that were what Groves is trying to do, then you might have a point.
In my opinion, that's a gross misrepresentation of what he's been
saying. He never suggested that Shakespeare's verse must be "perfect
iambic pentameter": he pointed out, quite reasonably, that it makes more
sense to assume that the name "Iago" is usually pronounced with three
syllables, and he gave several examples where the two-syllable
pronunciation produces a final trochee, which (he argues) is
"vanishingly rare in Shakespeare's --or anybody's--verse." If you
wished to counter this argument, it seems to me the best thing to do
would be to demonstrate that final trochees are *not* rare in
Shakespeare's verse.
It is of course easier to misrepresent his point and produce evidence to
disprove something he never said, but I always find such an approach to
be less rewarding in the long run.
[snip]
> In any case, I haven't heard anyone tell me that they've seen or heard
> a production of Othello where "Iago" is pronounced, either always
> or even mostly, with three syllables.
I haven't heard of or seen a production of Hamlet where the forced
exchange of rapiers between Laertes and Hamlet is played correctly,
either. Modern productions are a very poor indication of practices in
Shakespeare's day.
-Mark Steese
KQKnave
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>"Bulldog" Jim KQKnave, like Elizabeth Weir, has the remarkable ability to
>criticize books he's never read.
I'm not criticizing books I've never read. I'm criticizing what you have posted
on this newsgroup.
>This is so dim-witted and inept an attempt
>at constructing a straw man that it's not worth wasting time on.
Of course, of course. I take it you believe George T. Wright is
dimwitted?
>If he
>wants to talk about my theories, I suggest he acquaint himself with them
>first (the books and articles are available in any university library).
If you don't want people to misinterpret your theories, (assuming that
I HAVE misinterpreted them, which I doubt) don't post them incompletely
on this newsgroup.
"But how out of purpose and place do I name Art? When the professors
are grown so obstinate contemners of it, and presumers on their own
naturals, as they are deriders of all diligence that way, and by simple
mocking at the terms, when they understand not the things, think to get
off wittily with their ignorance. Nay, they are esteemed the more learned
and sufficient for this, by the many, through their excellent vice of
judgement."
Peter G.
cyberspace, so I'm reconstructing it here (my apologies if it really
did get through -- it doesn't appear on Google and my mail server has
been down for a day or so).
kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote in message news:<20030713145807...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> In article <MD2Qa.363$k57....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Peter Groves"
> <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
>
> >"Bulldog" Jim KQKnave,
I wrote "Jim Carroll": silently re-writing others' posts is dishonest.
But then you're the one hiding behind the pseudonym.
> >like Elizabeth Weir, has the remarkable ability to
> >criticize books he's never read.
>
> I'm not criticizing books I've never read. I'm criticizing what you have posted
> on this newsgroup.
>
> >This is so dim-witted and inept an attempt
> >at constructing a straw man that it's not worth wasting time on.
>
> Of course, of course. I take it you believe George T. Wright is
> dimwitted?
>
Why on earth would you assume that? Are you claiming that he had a
hand in constructing your dim-witted misrepresentation? If so it's a
lie, and a slur on a fine scholar.
> >If he
> >wants to talk about my theories, I suggest he acquaint himself with them
> >first (the books and articles are available in any university library).
>
> If you don't want people to misinterpret your theories, (assuming that
> I HAVE misinterpreted them, which I doubt)
This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth Weir, claim the ability to
criticize books you've never read.
> don't post them incompletely
> on this newsgroup.
>
I was responding to Tom Reedy's request for a brief account of the
matter. But brief as it is, it is not open to your malicious
misrepresentation of it (unless you are *considerably* more stupid
than you appear to be: this sort of thing illustrates why that eminent
scholar Professor Brian Vickers called you "unscrupulous"). If you
persist in claiming to believe your misrepresentation of my précis for
Tom, you're either a moron or a liar.
Let me try to explain it simply for you:
(1) Most pentameters are not prototypical, or what you call "perfect",
with ten syllables, alternately unstressed and stressed.
(2) But not every string of syllables is a pentameter (as you admit in
dismissing some lines from <Othello> 1.1 as unmetrical).
(3) One task of a theory of the metre, therefore, is to determine as
explicitly as possible and in terms of the phonology and syntax of the
language how far and in what ways lines may deviate from the
prototypical while remaining metrical, in terms of the intuitions of
the experienced reader of verse, which vary less than you might
suppose: most modern readers will agree with my theory in rejecting
the unmetrical lines cited by Puttenham, Daniel and Gascoigne (in my
précis).
Your problem (Bob might want to look into it) is that you're incapable
of even accepting (let alone admitting) that you've been wrong about
anything (your record on this is worse than Crowley's, who has at
least twice admitted on this newsgroup to having got something wrong).
You won't let anything go: you have to worry it, and worry it, like a
terrier growling over a bone. Take FE: everyone on the planet but you
has come to recognize that it isn't by Shakespeare (something that
anyone with an ear for style knew from the start) -- even Captain
Foster has gone over the side in a lifeboat, leaving you alone on the
bridge, roaring "Iceberg? What iceberg?".
Peter G.
Clark
> KQKarroll wrote
>, "Peter Groves" writes:
> >
> > >"Bulldog" Jim KQKnave,
>
> I wrote "Jim Carroll": silently re-writing others' posts is dishonest.
> But then you're the one hiding behind the pseudonym.
<snip>
> I was responding to Tom Reedy's request for a brief account of the
> matter. But brief as it is, it is not open to your malicious
> misrepresentation of it (unless you are *considerably* more stupid
> than you appear to be: this sort of thing illustrates why that eminent
> scholar Professor Brian Vickers called you "unscrupulous"). If you
> persist in claiming to believe your misrepresentation of my précis for
> Tom, you're either a moron or a liar.
Why can't he be both?
- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare web page at:
http://hollowaypages.com/Shakespeare.htm
And my new Ben Jonson web site at:
http://hollowaypages.com/Jonson.htm
KQKnave
Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) writes:
>My original response to this appears to have disappeared into
>cyberspace,
No, you sent something like it to my email by mistake instead.
[snip]
>> >like Elizabeth Weir, has the remarkable ability to
>> >criticize books he's never read.
>>
>> I'm not criticizing books I've never read. I'm criticizing what you have
>posted
>> on this newsgroup.
>>
>> >This is so dim-witted and inept an attempt
>> >at constructing a straw man that it's not worth wasting time on.
>>
>> Of course, of course. I take it you believe George T. Wright is
>> dimwitted?
>>
>
>Why on earth would you assume that?
Because you ignored his arguments that I posted here in this thread.
>Are you claiming that he had a
>hand in constructing your dim-witted misrepresentation? If so it's a
>lie, and a slur on a fine scholar.
I'm not claiming any such thing. Go back and read this thread again,
paying particularly close attention to the excerpts from Wright's book
that I posted.
>
>> >If he
>> >wants to talk about my theories, I suggest he acquaint himself with them
>> >first (the books and articles are available in any university library).
>>
>> If you don't want people to misinterpret your theories, (assuming that
>> I HAVE misinterpreted them, which I doubt)
>
>This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth Weir, claim the ability to
>criticize books you've never read.
I'm not criticizing your book. I'm criticizing what you have posted here.
Your transparent bs is just tiresome. You claim to be some kind of scholar,
but all you do here is play rhetorical games. If anybody cares they can
go over the thread using Google.
[snip]
Peter G.
> In article <6d502bef.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) writes:
>
> >My original response to this appears to have disappeared into
> >cyberspace,
>
> No, you sent something like it to my email by mistake instead.
>
> [snip]
> >> >like Elizabeth Weir, has the remarkable ability to
> >> >criticize books he's never read.
> >>
> >> I'm not criticizing books I've never read. I'm criticizing what you have
> posted
> >> on this newsgroup.
> >>
> >> >This is so dim-witted and inept an attempt
> >> >at constructing a straw man that it's not worth wasting time on.
> >>
> >> Of course, of course. I take it you believe George T. Wright is
> >> dimwitted?
> >>
> >
> >Why on earth would you assume that?
>
> Because you ignored his arguments that I posted here in this thread.
Of course I ignored them -- they were patently irrelevant (one of your
classic debating tactics: claiming irrelevant authority)
>
> >Are you claiming that he had a
> >hand in constructing your dim-witted misrepresentation? If so it's a
> >lie, and a slur on a fine scholar.
>
> I'm not claiming any such thing. Go back and read this thread again,
> paying particularly close attention to the excerpts from Wright's book
> that I posted.
>
Now concentrate hard, Jim (it's not all that difficult): if I claim
that your attempt at maliciously representing me is inept and
dim-witted, and you assume that my claim includes Professor Wright,
then I must assume that you either claim that he is implicated in it
or claim to believe that I think he is implicated in it.
> >
> >> >If he
> >> >wants to talk about my theories, I suggest he acquaint himself with them
> >> >first (the books and articles are available in any university library).
> >>
> >> If you don't want people to misinterpret your theories, (assuming that
> >> I HAVE misinterpreted them, which I doubt)
> >
> >This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth Weir, claim the ability to
> >criticize books you've never read.
>
> I'm not criticizing your book.
Again, it's not too difficult to understand if you work at it: you say
you doubt that you have misinterpreted *not* the brief précis I posted
here but my *theories*. This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth
Weir, claim the ability to criticize books you've never read.
> I'm criticizing what you have posted here.
> Your transparent bs is just tiresome. You claim to be some kind of scholar,
> but all you do here is play rhetorical games.
<De te fabula narratur, O Jim>: this is a pretty good summary of your
own <modus operandi>. I can sympathize with Ward Elliott when he
writes "I did sift through pages and pages of "Jim's" hardball
postings, such as "More Elliott & Valenza bullshit," looking for gold,
but found only muck. I was more impressed by their contentiousness
than by their accuracy. I found them even more abusive, obstructive,
repetitive, and obscurantist than Foster's original CHum hardballs,
and less informative." (SHAKSPER SHK 14.1333 Tuesday, 1 July 2003).
I wish I could say, with Professor Brian Vickers, Litt.D., F.B.A.,
"There, I have done. 'Knave' Jim Carroll is a fake scholar, a
vindictive, unscrupulous, xenophobic defender of HIS Shakespeare
canon. Mindful, with Falstaff, that 'pitch, as ancient writers do
report, doth defile', I vow never to speak or write his name again."
(SHAKSPER SHK 14.1400 Tuesday, 8 July 2003), but I fear it will not
be possible.
The real difference between us (and I suspect that this is what gets
your goat) is that I have published scholarly peer-reviewed books and
articles on these matters, and all you can do is bullshit about them
on Usenet. If you find <Strange Music> too hard to follow you can
always read a review of it: "He discusses the historical reasons that
account for the fact that 'traditional metrics', as applied to English
poetry, 'doesn't make sense'. He follows this with a rigorously argued
account of metrical theory, and concludes by offering his own metrical
grammar, a 'post-generative synthesis' of 'generative metrics,
musicalism and humanist scansion' (p. 13), combining scrupulous
phonetic analysis with sensitivity to mood and context. . . . The
rules, confirmed by exhaustive study of Shakespeare Milton and Pope,
carry conviction. The text, though abounding with delightful critical
insights, is not designed for passive consumption . . . but teachers
and students with a little knowledge of the subject will find it a
valuable source of fresh ideas." (Carolyn D. Williams, <Modern
Language Review> 95 (2000): 1064).
Peter G.
Symposium1
(KQKnave) writes:
>In any case, I haven't heard anyone tell me that they've seen or heard
>a production of Othello where "Iago" is pronounced, either always
>or even mostly, with three syllables.
Having just seen "Othello" at ASF (which was, disappointingly, not up to par
because of the deficiencies of the two male leads), I can report that "Iago"
sounded like "Ee-ah-go" to me, though it generally wasn't a very clearly
STRESSED third syllable -- more of a glide between two and three if that makes
sense. Pretty much the same was true in the James McLure play entitled "Iago,"
which was not a perfect play but the four-person cast was very strong in it.
Our final day was a double-whammy of "Noises Off" and "Arcadia," so "Othello"
was the only Shakespeare play we could fit in. I wasn't about to pass up
"Arcadia for "R&J" even though it was probably great, and "Two Gents" was sold
out so we did some historical sightseeing.
I had intended to post full reviews by now, but I didn't have time to write a
word while there, and haven't had much time since arriving back home.
--Ann
Peter Farey
"Symposium1" (Ann) wrote:
>
> "KQKnave" (Jim) wrote:
>
> > In any case, I haven't heard anyone tell me that they've seen
> > or heard a production of Othello where "Iago" is pronounced,
> > either always or even mostly, with three syllables.
>
> Having just seen "Othello" at ASF (which was, disappointingly,
> not up to par because of the deficiencies of the two male leads),
> I can report that "Iago" sounded like "Ee-ah-go" to me, though
> it generally wasn't a very clearly STRESSED third syllable --
> more of a glide between two and three if that makes sense.
> Pretty much the same was true in the James McLure play entitled
> "Iago," which was not a perfect play but the four-person cast
> was very strong in it.
And this is the way it has been pronounced for the most part in
every production I have ever seen. Sorry to hear about the two
male leads. The most memorable production for me was at the Old
Vic in 1956, directed by Denis Carey, when John Neville and
Richard Burton alternated the two roles, and seemed to create
two completely different plays as a result!
Incidentally, the third episode of Michael Wood's TV series has
extracts from the play with Ray Fearon (Othello) and Anthony
Scher (Iago), which are magnificent! Something which, alas, is
far from true for many of the other extracts shown. Whoever
did the cuts should be shot! Look at *Richard III* for example
(cuts in brackets).
GLOUCESTER
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the clouds that loured upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
(Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruise\d arms hung up for monuments,
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front,
And now - instead of mounting barbe\d steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries -
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.)
But I, I, that am
(not shaped for sportive tricks
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass,
I that am rudely stamped and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph,
I that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,)
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up -
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me
(as I halt by them -
Why, I in this weak piping time of peace
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore)
since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determine\d to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Symposium1
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Whoever
>did the cuts should be shot! Look at *Richard III* for example
>(cuts in brackets).
That's hardly cutting, that's more like scything! Or mowing, to be a bit less
dramatic.
I hate it when cuts save only a few seconds and seem arbitrary, or ruin the
balance of the verse.
Some years ago I posted:
<<Incidentally, I was disgusted to hear this particular speech slashed up for
no
apparent purpose but to save ten seconds. They rendered it:
Hot. By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honour from the pale-fac'd moon,
So he that doth redeem her thence might wear
Without corrival all her dignities...
To me, it was like cutting a leg off a table. The high/low imagery was lost,
and the idea that honour was 'lost' both in moony heights (the King's) and in
drownčd depths (Hal's) -- sacrificed for two breaths.>>
Restored, it's beautiful:
By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honour from the pale-fac'd moon,
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fadom line could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drowned honour by the locks,
So he that doth redeem her thence might wear
Without corrival all her dignities;
But out upon this half-fac'd fellowship!
--Ann
KQKnave
>kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote in message
>news:<20030715022711...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>> In article <6d502bef.03071...@posting.google.com>,
>> Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) writes:
>>
>> >My original response to this appears to have disappeared into
>> >cyberspace,
>>
>> No, you sent something like it to my email by mistake instead.
>>
>> [snip]
>> >> >like Elizabeth Weir, has the remarkable ability to
>> >> >criticize books he's never read.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not criticizing books I've never read. I'm criticizing what you have
>> posted
>> >> on this newsgroup.
>> >>
>> >> >This is so dim-witted and inept an attempt
>> >> >at constructing a straw man that it's not worth wasting time on.
But you do anyway, but rather than respond with some facts, you just
rant about my supposed dishonesty. *You* silently emended my screen
name from KQKnave to KQcarroll, and when I changed it back, you claimed
that I'm dishonest.
Yet another performance of Othello does not pronounce "Iago" with
three syllables, this one with Olivier in the title role, Frank Finlay as Iago.
Not a trace of a trisyllabic "Iago" in the entire performance:
For know Iago
But that I love the gentle Desdemona 1.2.24-25 Yah-go (Olivier)
Honest Iago,
My Desdemona must I leave to thee 1.3.294-5 Yah-go (Olivier)
Iago Yah-go 1.3.301 (Robert Lang)
Left in the conduct of the bold Iago 2.1.75 Yah-go (Derek Jacobi)
etc.
Furthermore, the cast and directors seem to realize the prosiness of
act 1 and other places, for they make no attempt to squeeze every
line into iambic pentameter.
For example, the lines "Forsooth a great arithmetician/
Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you 1.1.91 Oth 1.1.19
spoken by Frank Finlay, have nine and twelve syllables respectively.
Likewise Finlay adds an extra syllable in lines that would be iambic
pentameter without the extra syllable, such as
"Dull not device by coldness and delay" 2.3.388, Finlay adds an extra syllable
"col-de-ness" (and does it elsewhere as well).
Since you have accused me of having no ear for verse, then apparently you
believe that Olivier, Finlay et. al. also have no ear (as well as the casts of
the Fishburne and the Welles versions). I think it's more likely that you
have no feeling for the tendency toward a prose-like naturalness in the
verse of Shakespeare's later work.
>> >> Of course, of course. I take it you believe George T. Wright is
>> >> dimwitted?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why on earth would you assume that?
>>
>> Because you ignored his arguments that I posted here in this thread.
>
>Of course I ignored them -- they were patently irrelevant (one of your
>classic debating tactics: claiming irrelevant authority)
They weren't irrelevant. You've been claiming all sorts of things here,
such as that the pronunciation of Iago is trisyllabic and that I have no
ear because I think that the first act of Othello is prose. Wright's points
were that there is a great deal of syllabic ambiguity in Shakespeare,
and that in his dramatic poetry he strived to create a more natural
speech-like poetry. Therefore the idea that "Iago" *must* be trisyllabic
for certain lines is not true.
>>
>> >Are you claiming that he had a
>> >hand in constructing your dim-witted misrepresentation? If so it's a
>> >lie, and a slur on a fine scholar.
>>
>> I'm not claiming any such thing. Go back and read this thread again,
>> paying particularly close attention to the excerpts from Wright's book
>> that I posted.
>>
>
>Now concentrate hard, Jim (it's not all that difficult): if I claim
>that your attempt at maliciously representing me is inept and
>dim-witted, and you assume that my claim includes Professor Wright,
>then I must assume that you either claim that he is implicated in it
>or claim to believe that I think he is implicated in it.
In what way have I misrepresented you? Give a fact please, not just a claim,
rather than this dim-witted attempt at twisting words.
>
>> >
>> >> >If he
>> >> >wants to talk about my theories, I suggest he acquaint himself with
>them
>> >> >first (the books and articles are available in any university library).
>
>> >>
>> >> If you don't want people to misinterpret your theories, (assuming that
>> >> I HAVE misinterpreted them, which I doubt)
>> >
>> >This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth Weir, claim the ability to
>> >criticize books you've never read.
>>
>> I'm not criticizing your book.
>
>Again, it's not too difficult to understand if you work at it: you say
>you doubt that you have misinterpreted *not* the brief précis I posted
>here but my *theories*. This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth
>Weir, claim the ability to criticize books you've never read.
Please. The "brief precis" and your "theories" are one and the same on
this newsgroup. I haven't read your book.
KQKnave
sympo...@aol.computer (Symposium1) writes:
>>In any case, I haven't heard anyone tell me that they've seen or heard
>>a production of Othello where "Iago" is pronounced, either always
>>or even mostly, with three syllables.
>
>Having just seen "Othello" at ASF (which was, disappointingly, not up to par
>because of the deficiencies of the two male leads), I can report that "Iago"
>sounded like "Ee-ah-go" to me, though it generally wasn't a very clearly
>STRESSED third syllable -- more of a glide between two and three if that
>makes
>sense.
The second syllable should be stressed, so I think you mean a glide
between 1 and 2.
> Pretty much the same was true in the James McLure play entitled
>"Iago,"
>which was not a perfect play but the four-person cast was very strong in it.
Probably due to the influence of the 1996 Arden edition (Honigmann's),
which as a footnote to the the first appearance of the word "Iago", says "three
syllables". However, the earlier 1958 Arden edition (edited by Ridley) has
no comment on that issue, nor does any other edition that I could find.
The issue of trisyllabic "Iago" is just another fad, like disintegrationism,
that will come and go periodically.
Symposium1
(KQKnave) writes:
> I can report that "Iago"
>>sounded like "Ee-ah-go" to me, though it generally wasn't a very clearly
>>STRESSED third syllable -- more of a glide between two and three if that
>>makes
>>sense.
>
>The second syllable should be stressed, so I think you mean a glide
>between 1 and 2.
Actually, I meant a glide between two-syllables and three-syllables, but yes,
the glide was affected between 1 and 2.
--Ann
John W. Kennedy
trochee, and it remains true that quite a few lines end with "Iago", in
such a way that it must be accepted either that the name (in these
lines, but not others) is to be pronounced "Ia-GO", which is ridiculous,
or that it is to constitute a trochee.
And Othello, I, i, is certainly not prose. Irregular and broken lines
are one thing; outright prose is quite another. In short speeches of
only a few words, it can be hard to tell which is meant (since printers
before the 19th century or so generally didn't care), but in speeches
covering several lines, the difference is blatant. The rhythms of the
true iambic line are always quite distinct from those of prose, and
anyone who reads a text by sound can tell at once which of the two is meant.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Do you observe?" (such was the phrase with which the wretch began each
sentence) “Do you observe the way in which that broken arch, at the very
top of the ruin, stands out against the clear sky? It is placed exactly
right: and there is exactly enough of it. A little more, or a little
less, and all would be utterly spoiled!”
"Oh gifted architect!" murmured Arthur, inaudibly to all but Lady Muriel
and myself. "Foreseeing the exact effect his work would have, when in
ruins, centuries after his death!"
-- Lewis Carroll, "Sylvie and Bruno"
Peter Groves
> In article <6d502bef.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) writes:
>
> >kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote in message
> >news:<20030715022711...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
> >> In article <6d502bef.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> >> Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) writes:
> >>
> >> >My original response to this appears to have disappeared into
> >> >cyberspace,
> >>
> >> No, you sent something like it to my email by mistake instead.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> >> >like Elizabeth Weir, has the remarkable ability to
> >> >> >criticize books he's never read.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not criticizing books I've never read. I'm criticizing what you
have
> >> posted
> >> >> on this newsgroup.
> >> >>
> >> >> >This is so dim-witted and inept an attempt
> >> >> >at constructing a straw man that it's not worth wasting time on.
>
> But you do anyway, but rather than respond with some facts, you just
> rant about my supposed dishonesty. *You* silently emended my screen
> name from KQKnave to KQcarroll, and when I changed it back, you claimed
> that I'm dishonest.
>
I'm afraid you're confusing me with somebody else. I have never referred to
you as "KQcarroll" or "silently emended [your] screen name".
You're right about the Olivier version, but mistaken about Welles
(universally trisyllabic Iago); I don't have a copy of the Fishburne, but
I'll take your word for it.. To take a more recent example, Antony Hopkins'
BBC production uses a trisyllabic Iago throughout. These are interesting
facts about cultural history, but they're not facts about the metre: they're
simply performance choices that are forced on the modern actor by changes in
the language. Whenever Shakespeare's syllabification or stressing of a word
differs from ours (and it's not all that often), the modern actor can choose
to sound (a) metrical but slightly odd; (b) naturalistic but unmetrical.
But 99% of the time in the mature verse of Shakespeare there is no conflict
between the two (that's precisely what makes pentameter an ideal mete for
drama). To quote from <Strange Music>:
"Because prosodic adjustments are unobtrusive, and generally made below the
threshold of consciousness, they are easily overlooked or denied altogether.
One kind, however, is obvious to everyone: addressing a group of RSC actors,
John Barton points out the need to pronounce the elidibles in violenteth and
ocean in [the lines below], and the restorable in galled ("One has to say
'g~ll d', if the line is going to scan properly . . . if you mis-scan the
line it's going to sound odd, like this: 'As /fearful/ly as /doth a /gall'd
/rock'. It's a bit of a hiccup, isn't it?" [40-42; solidi indicate beats in
Barton's reading]).
And violenteth in a sence as strong (Tro. 4.4.4)
o----Aö-O O O o--A o-----A
w S w S w S w S w S
Swill'd with the wild and wastfull Ocean. (H5 3.1.14)
A-[o]----Æ o--A o-----A---o A-öO
Ð---------w w S w S w S wS
As fearefully, as doth a galled Rocke (H5 3.1.12)
o----A----o O O O o--A-[o] A
w S w S {w S} w S w S
Modern readers will tend to distinguish between the first two kinds of
special pronunciation, because while trisyllabic violent remains a
possibility in contemporary English, at least in a slow, deliberate
speech-style, trisyllabic ocean does not: what used to be an elidible has
since disappeared under the pressure of historical sound-change. But this is
a fact about our English, not about Shakespeare's. No doubt some actors and
directors will prefer a lapse in the metre to pronunciations they fear their
audience may perceive as stagey, precious or simply odd; nevertheless, the
fact remains that mapped elidibles must be signalled in performance, however
subtly, if the line is to be metrical. In , for example, the reader may
phonetically syncopate desp'rate to two syllables, or may not; there will be
different effects on the rhythm, and on what Jakobson calls the
delivery-style, but none on the metre. If the reader syncopates Misery,
however, the metre collapses (the distinction is registered in Pope's
orthography):
And desp'rate Misery lays hold on Dover (Pope, HE 1.6 57)
o-------A--öo-----A-ö-O a-----A o-----A-o
w S w S w S w S w S o
> I think it's more likely that you
> have no feeling for the tendency toward a prose-like naturalness in the
> verse of Shakespeare's later work.
>
It's a common misocnception that metre and naturalness are necessarily
antithetical; the complexity of the metre in Shakespeare's later plays is
there precisely to mimic reality (any fool can write wooden pentameter, as
in <Gorbuduc>). Another quote from my book (since Usenet is pure ASCII, I
will have to indicate contrastive accent with asterisks):
"Take the verse "Lord of his Reason. What though you fled" (Ant. 3.13.4)
from Cleopatra and Enobarbus's post-mortem over the battle of Actium; out of
context [i.e. without accent] the most likely prosodic base would be [thus],
providing only four possible beats:
Lord of his Reason. What though you fled
A---Æ o---A--o A--------Æ o----A
For this reason, editors have frequently sought to emend it in some way:
Steevens, for example, suggested "What although . . . ". The context,
however, clearly requires contrastive accent on you: "What though you [that
is: a woman, unused to warfare] fled? . . . Why should he [a hardened
soldier] follow?"; once we correct the prosodic base the scansion becomes
plain, [with catalexis (a missing off-beat) in the last foot] (indeed, the
pattern is repeated two lines later):
Cleo. Is Anthony, or we in fault for this?
Eno. Anthony onely, that would make his will
Lord of his Reason. What though you fled
A---Æ o---A--o A Æ------*O*-}
Ð---w w S w S w S[w]S
From that great Face of Warre, whose severall ranges
Frighted each other? Why should he follow?
A----o a-----A--o A Æ----*O*--}--o
Ð-----w w S w S w S[w]S o
A peculiarly flagrant example of editorial botching can be seen in the first
four lines of Macbeth 2.2, which are lineated thus in the First Folio, the
only authority we have for the text of the play:
That which hath made them drunk, hath made me bold:
What hath quench'd them, hath given me fire.
Hearke, peace: it was the Owle that shriek'd,
The fatall Bell-man, which gives the stern'st good-night.
Since the second line of the F text has only nine syllables, and the third
only eight, every editor of the play (with the sole exception of Charles
Knight) has followed the Bysshean example of Rowe and printed them with the
following "regularized" lineation:That which hath made them drunk, hath made
me bold;
What hath quench'd them hath given me fire. Hark! Peace!
It was the owl that shriek'd, the fatal bellman,
Which gives the stern'st goodnight. . . . (Riverside)
The second of these lines in the modern redaction will scan in a
satisfactory but uninteresting manner:
What hath quench'd them, hath given me fire. Hark! Peace!
O o-------A--[o] *O* o----A-ö *O* A A A
Ð---w w S w S w S w
S
But once you cease to scan on your fingers, and pay attention instead to the
pragmatics of the utterance, the Folio version of the second line is
revealed as not only metrical as it stands, but considerably more effective
as a piece of dramatic verse than its modern redaction. It is the assignment
of contrastive accent to the antithetical pairs them : me and quenched :
(given) fire, coupled with the metrical requirement to find five beats in
the line, that gives it at once both its metrical shape and its sinister,
gloating rhythm as Lady Macbeth lingers on the last two beats, a lingering
emphasized by contrast with the prosodically similar but necessarily brisker
coda to the preceding line:
That which hath made them drunk, hath made me bold:
A----Æ o----A *O* *A* o----A *O* *A*
Ð----w w S w S w S w
S
What hath quench'd them, hath given me fire.
A---o A--[o] *O* o-----A-ö *O* A
Ð---w w S w S w S[w]S
In the next Folio line, the successive catalexes, throwing beats onto both
Hearke and peace, produce a staccato rhythm consonant with Lady Macbeth's
jumpiness, an effect (and an authorial direction to the actor) that is lost
if-as in -only one of those successive dominants is allowed to function as a
beat:
Hearke, peace: it was the Owle that shriek'd,
A 2 A 2O O o--A o-----A-[o]
[w]S [w] S {Ðw} w S w S
Actors who play Lady Macbeth often revert (presumably through an intuitive
perception of its greater appropriateness) to the catalected performance
indicated by the Folio lineation."
> >> >> Of course, of course. I take it you believe George T. Wright is
> >> >> dimwitted?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Why on earth would you assume that?
> >>
> >> Because you ignored his arguments that I posted here in this thread.
> >
> >Of course I ignored them -- they were patently irrelevant (one of your
> >classic debating tactics: claiming irrelevant authority)
>
> They weren't irrelevant. You've been claiming all sorts of things here,
> such as that the pronunciation of Iago is trisyllabic and that I have no
> ear because I think that the first act of Othello is prose. Wright's
points
> were that there is a great deal of syllabic ambiguity in Shakespeare,
> and that in his dramatic poetry he strived to create a more natural
> speech-like poetry. Therefore the idea that "Iago" *must* be trisyllabic
> for certain lines is not true.
>
I don't think you'll find Wright agreeing with you about "Iago": some
syllabification is constrained by the metre, some isn't. But if you pay
attention to what I've written above you'll see that your quotation from
Wright doesn't contradict it.
>
> >>
> >> >Are you claiming that he had a
> >> >hand in constructing your dim-witted misrepresentation? If so it's a
> >> >lie, and a slur on a fine scholar.
> >>
> >> I'm not claiming any such thing. Go back and read this thread again,
> >> paying particularly close attention to the excerpts from Wright's book
> >> that I posted.
> >>
> >
> >Now concentrate hard, Jim (it's not all that difficult): if I claim
> >that your attempt at maliciously representing me is inept and
> >dim-witted, and you assume that my claim includes Professor Wright,
> >then I must assume that you either claim that he is implicated in it
> >or claim to believe that I think he is implicated in it.
>
> In what way have I misrepresented you? Give a fact please, not just a
claim,
> rather than this dim-witted attempt at twisting words.
I'm sorry all those subordinate clauses make it too hard for you to follow,
Jim. As to misrepresentation, you seem to be acquiring a RKennedy-like
amnesia. Let me refresh your memory:
Knave:
> Yes, but I was speaking in the context of what Groves is trying
> to do, that is, take every irregular line in Shakespeare and torture
> the pronunciation of the words until it seems to be perfect iambic
> pentameter. It's just another example of the "Shakespeare can do
> no wrong" attitude that affects so much Shakespearean scholarship.
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> >If he
> >> >> >wants to talk about my theories, I suggest he acquaint himself with
> >them
> >> >> >first (the books and articles are available in any university
library).
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> If you don't want people to misinterpret your theories, (assuming
that
> >> >> I HAVE misinterpreted them, which I doubt)
> >> >
> >> >This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth Weir, claim the ability to
> >> >criticize books you've never read.
> >>
> >> I'm not criticizing your book.
> >
> >Again, it's not too difficult to understand if you work at it: you say
> >you doubt that you have misinterpreted *not* the brief précis I posted
> >here but my *theories*. This suggests that you *do*, like Elizabeth
> >Weir, claim the ability to criticize books you've never read.
>
> Please. The "brief precis" and your "theories" are one and the same on
> this newsgroup.
Yes, of course: I must have briefly forgotten that HLAS is mud-wrestling (as
someone aptly observed) rather than scholarship.
Peter G.
Peter Groves
I hope anyone reading the post can follow my point anyway.
Peter G.