Shakespeare And English Speech Rhythm

[Stephen Jones]

What you are talking about now is very different from your original poiint.

It was therefore necessary to provide cues so the actor would know when his line was coming up, hence the very distinctive rhyme and rhythm.

It is only in the fhird case that we see this happening, and the Elizabethans loved word play so much that I really doubt if the actor's welfare was a faotor in favour of a pun.

"Shakespeare’s plays were written in verse for other practical reasons. First, an actor might have to perform as many as forty plays a year, so lines of verse were easier to memorize."

Not the same thing as you originally said at all, and already mentioned by me above

Rhyme and rhythm obviously make it easier to learn your lines, which is why we can learn chunks of poetry much easier than chunks of prose. I suspect that is what they are referring to.

Even here however we can doubt how much of a factor this was. Shakespeare often introduced prose into his plays, and when he did he was nearly always for low life characters, such as the Porter in Macbeth. Blank verse has probably much more to do with the social position of the character than the memory capacity of the actor.

Rhymed couplets occur frequently at the end of a scene, punctuating the dramatic rhythm and perhaps serving
as a cue to the offstage actors to enter for the next scene." (my emphasis)

To quote myself again:

As I said rhyme is rare in all but the early Shakespeare. When he does use it, it is often at the very end of a scene to give a sense of completion - which rather puts paid to the prompt idea.

As the learned professor and I are in agreement as to the locations and frequency of rhyming couplet,s all we have to do is
decide on his 'remind the new actors of the next scene hypothesis'.
I suppose it's possible, We can imagine as the actors from the previous scene all walked off the stage in full view of the actors for the next one who said to themselves "Nah, that ain't the end of the scene; they've probably all just got a bad attack of the runs. Should lay off the steak and ale. Anyway, they'll be back in a minute" Or maybe Shakespearian actors were all unionized and it was common for them to walk off mid-scene for a mandatory tea break.

One piece of advice, lolwhites. When a scholar says 'perhaps' what he really means is "this is an idea that has just occurred to me off the top of my head, and I actually haven't given it any thought, but I thought I'd chuck it in anyway just to see if it floats".

Actually, you could make a case for the rhyme being a useful prompt for the other actors on stage, telling them to get off, but who the rhyming couplet really gives useful information to is the audience. Remember that there is no curtain or lighting to announce the end of a scene, and also that there is no scenery to tell the audience that the location has changed. A rhyming couplet, giving completion, would let them know that the scene was over and that the next scene would probably take place in a new location (though if you llook at "Romeo and Juliet" and think of the layout of an Elizebethan stage you can see that it is fairly normal for a new scene to take part in a different physical location on stage to the previous one; this is less clear however with the later tragedies).

Now, all we need is revel to come up with some cite for Hamlet being the work of Mike Leigh and cast in a former reincarnation.

[revel]

Hey all!

Steven seems to have something against so-called "theatre people". On his suggestion I've surfed about a bit looking for information on how plays were produced or rehearsed in the theatre of Elizabeth. Most of what I've found is conjecture, but here are a couple of things:

"Composition and ownership of plays. Scholars and critics have inherited an almost endless number of literary puzzles from the Elizabethan age. A play might be written, handed over to the manager of a company of actors, and produced with or without the author's name. In many instances the author forgot or ignored all subsequent affairs connected with it. If changes were required, perhaps it would be given to some well known playwright to be "doctored" before the next production. Henslowe, who had an interest in several London theaters, continuously employed playwrights, famous and otherwise, in working out new, promising material for his actors. Most dramatists of the time served an apprenticeship, in which they did anything they were asked to do. Sometimes they made the first draft of a piece which would be finished by a more experienced hand; sometimes they collaborated with another writer; or they gave the finishing touches to a new play; or revamped a Spanish, French, or Italian piece in an attempt to make it more suitable for the London public."

"The plays were the property, not of the author, but of the acting companies. Aside from the costly costumes, they formed the most valuable part of the company's capital. The parts were learned by the actors, and the manuscript locked up. If the piece became popular, rival managers often stole it by sending to the performance a clerk who took down the lines in shorthand. Neither authors nor managers had any protection from pirate publishers, who frequently issued copies of successful plays without the consent of either. Many cases of missing or mutilated scenes, faulty lines or confused grammar may be laid to the door of these copy brigands. In addition to this, after the play had had a London success, it was cut down, both in length and in the number of parts, for the use of strolling players--a fact which of course increased the chances of mutilation."

(This article was originally published in A Short History of the Theatre. Martha Fletcher Bellinger. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1927. pp. 207-13.)

I'll leave it at that, for Steven's interpretation. I was certainly not suggesting that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare, but was rather was suggesting that, as in all live theatre, the end result would have necessarily been the work of all involved, including the public eating apples and throwing the cores at one another.

peace,
revel.

[revel]

My post came before I read Steven's last, and I can only say, "darn it revel, why did you bother ruffling his fur?"

So, I leave the last word to him.

peace

[Stephen Jones]

I note Revel that your article nowhere mentions Shakespeare.

The comments you give may apply to other writers but are not true for Shakespeare (nor I suspect were they true for Jonson, or for Webster).

Secondly shakespeare's plays were published, first iindividually as Quartos, and then collectively in the Folios. Thus altnough it is possible that the plays changed somewhat in live performance (though considering Shakespeare's reputation I doubt it) the published versions (which differ in very little from each other) are likely to have Shakespeare's seal of approval.

There are plays were Shakespeare is considered part author; the Arden Shakespeare has announced that it is adding Edward III to the canon, and there is one play which escapes me that is considered to be mainly the work of Beaumont and Fletcher. There is also discussion about parts of plays that are indubitably mainly Shakespeare's (one or two of the witches scenes in Macbeth) but there is overwhelming agreement among Shakespearian scholars that the plays attributed to Shakespeare after about 1594 are written by one hand alone (with the exoception of occasional scenes and some argument about 'Cymbeline'). Apart from anything else they are stylistically consistent, and you don't see the joins.

Four things to bear in mind. First of all computer analysis of the footprints of the texts - that is to say the average number of syllables in a word among other things, points strongly to unique authorship.
Secondly the number of neologisms. Shakespeare was perpetually inventing new words, and even more so new collocations, and you would be surprised to see the number of words that can be first attributed to Shakespeare.
Then the question of imagery. Since the publication of 'Shakespeare's Imagery' by Catherine Spurgeon in 1935 it has been common to analyze plays by reference to the imagery alone. There are themes which run throughout individual plays, and do not suggest common autorship, apart from the fact that many of the images can be traced back to words only common in the area around Stratford.
And then finally there is the question of the myriad references to many other writers and sources. Despite the myth of Shakespeare 'having little Latin and less Greek' he was one of the most widely read members of his generation - indeed astonlishingly so. Even if all the actors in the troupe had his intellectual curiousity they would not have been able to satisfy it, for books at that time were both rare and incredibly expensive (less so than in the time of Chaucer when a book cost more than a house) but still beyond the purse of all but the richest aristocrats, amongst whom Shakespeare would have had many friends who would have given him access to their libraries.

I will now smooth down my hair and go back to sleep until tomorrow.

[lolwhites]

You may split hairs until you are blue in the face, Stephen, but if you insist on failing to see a connection between the quote from my post, and the one about verse being easier to remember, you're probably the only one reading the thread who does.

I accept that it's not exactly the same thing, but you may have noticed my position is not exactly the same as it was at the start of the thread; that, in case you hadn't realised, is the point of a discussion (this is a discussion forum, not a debating forum). You interact with others, consider their viewpoints and modify yours accordingly.

Your analysis of the "rhyming couplet at the end of the scene helps cue the performer" hypothesis is as glib as it is disingenous. Do you want to have a serious discussion or don't you?

As to the meaning of perhaps I certainly don't take it to mean "please disregard the following" and frankly I don't think you would either if what it said actually supported your analysis. The problem, as far as you're concerned, is that it doesn't. The prof could have simply left it out if it wasn't relevant. He didn't. I could remind you of your remarks about others lacking "academic rigour" but I won't patronise you by quoting your own words back at you.

[Stephen Jones]

I was objecting to your initial statement. If you have now changed your position then I am not objecting. As I pointed out, my previous posts agreed with your later quotations.

I don't wish to have a serious discussion about the suggestion that the rhyming couplets are there to give a cue to the actors for the next scene any more than I wish to have a serious discussion about the moon being made of green cheese. There is no evidence for it, and it is baseless speculation that doesn't even coincide with common sense.

[revel]

Good morning.

Here's more information, then:

From the British Library:

"Almost no manuscripts of early plays survive, and scholars have been forced to speculate about those used by printers. The evidence provided by printed plays suggests that they could be of several types:

* Fair copy prepared by the dramatist for the playing company
* Dramatist’s foul papers
* Obsolete promptbook
* Transcript of the fair copy, or the promptbook
* Copy of the play prepared for a friend or patron
* Memorial reconstruction by one or more of the actors who took part in performances
* Text specially prepared, perhaps by the dramatist, for printing.

The relationship between the surviving printed texts, their lost manuscript sources, and what was actually performed on stage has been the subject of much theoretical investigation."

"An almost regular publication of his [Shakespeare's] plays began in 1597, with the first quartos of Romeo and Juliet, Richard II, and Richard III. Romeo and Juliet is now described as a ‘bad’ quarto, with a text thought to be a memorial reconstruction. The ‘good’ quarto of 1599 printed a text which was nearly half as long again and with many changes, now thought to derive from Shakespeare’s foul papers of the play."

"Scholars have always accepted that Shakespeare took no interest in the publication of his plays. "

From Encyclopaedia Britanica:

"First Folio, first published edition (1623) of the collected works of William Shakespeare, originally published as Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories & Tragedies. It is the major source for contemporary texts of his plays.

The publication of drama in the early 17th century was usually left to the poorer members of the Stationers' Company (which issued licenses) and to outright pirates. The would-be publisher had only to get hold of a manuscript, by fair means or foul, enter it as his copy (or dispense with the formality), and have it printed. Such a man was Thomas Thorpe, the publisher of Shakespeare's sonnets (1609). The mysterious "Mr. W.H." in the dedication is thought by some to be the person who procured him his copy.

The first Shakespeare play to be published (Titus Andronicus, 1594) was printed by a notorious pirate, John Danter, who also brought out, anonymously, a defective Romeo and Juliet (1597), largely from shorthand notes made during performance. Eighteen of Shakespeare's plays were printed in quartos (books about half the size of a modern magazine) both "good" and "bad" before the First Folio (a large-format book) was published in 1623. The bad quartos are defective editions, usually with badly garbled or missing text."

Once again, I stress that I am not arguing that WS didn't write those plays. I am simply pointing out that between penning the poetry and just the point of the first folio, so many hands were in the work that it is not impossible that significant changes were made to the works. As it is indicated that WS himself showed little interest in the publication of his work, it is also probable that he did not see proofs to make sure that the text was what he had written. I have only speculated, as so many "scholars" have done, based on what exists today, on one of the possible sources of WS's work, trying to highlight the importance of the improvisational aspect, as illustrated in my example of the improvisation in Hamlet. I do not doubt that someone sat down and wrote down the verse and that actors memorized it and that that someone was WS, both the playwright and the actor. And perhaps WS had a photographic memory, as did his colleagues in the workshop, after all, their livelihood depended on their being able to remember those large blocks of text and those 40 some plays they would present in any given year.

We have so little proof of what was going on in rehearsals or backstage in the 17th century and to summarily state that this is so and that is not so seems out of place, that is why such words as "perhaps" are often used by reasonable writers when discussing Shakespeare. We don't know, for example, if a shorter version of say, Romeo and Juliet was shorter because it was copied from a prompt book of a touring company's work. What remarkable minds those actors (often described as vagabonds and low-lifes) must have had to see a play once, maybe twice, and be able to quickly jot down the lines and then accurately recite the monologues just as WS wanted! Oh, what a silly discussion this, I do promise not to contribute more.

peace,
revel.

[Stephen Jones]

Scholars have given large chunks of their lives to textual analysis of Shakespeare since Dryden's time.

When you get a copu of any Shakespeare play the copy you will get from Arden is different from the copy from CUP, which is diffferent from the copy you get from Signet and so on. And all of these copies will be different from the copies in the Good Quartos or the First Folio. However the differences are normally individual words or lines. Nothing at all to suggest that whole scenes were left out, or that large chunks of the plays were improvised.

The bad Quartos can normally be ignored as far as Shakespeare's final texts go. It is clear that there were slightly different texts used for the different versions printed up to 1623; however the differences are small, and it is clear that somebody took a fair amount of care, particularly over the First Folio.

Seeing you like modern analogies think of film directors. Most film directors have little or no input over the final cut of their film. That doesn't mean the same applies to a Spielberg or a Bergman for example.