Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2014 :: January ::
Scanning Shakespeare's Verse

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.058  Thursday, 30 January 2014

 

[1] From:        Ros Barber < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         January 29, 2014

     Subject:    Scanning Shakespeare's Verse 

 

[2] From:        Sidney Lubow < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         January 29, 2014 at 10:49:42 PM EST

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Scansion 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Ros Barber < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         January 29, 2014

Subject:    Scanning Shakespeare's Verse

 

Peter Groves: one’s reason for teaching the simpler, less accurate (traditional) scansion over a complex, more accurate system (yours) will depend upon on one’s reasons for teaching scansion at all.  Perhaps your system is very useful for those who wish to perform metrical poetry; the point I was making is that has no practical value to someone who is learning scansion in order to write metrical poetry.  You infer (but I did not intend to imply) that I made the ‘grave error’ of supposing rhythm has nothing to do with meaning; as a professional poet I understand innately that the two knit together. I was simply pointing out that we poets do not write for rhythm alone, and if we were to attempt to write with an eye to complex Grovesian scansion I suspect the poetry would be dead on arrival; technical analysis can be applied after the fact by readers, but is not conducive to the process of writing.

 

The question we were discussing, I believe, is whether Shakespeare wrote with intentional variation in the iambic line (such as the occasional anapaest) or whether all such variation can be read as flagging up a corrupt text.  If this something your more complex system of scansion can resolve, then go ahead and engage with Gerald Downs on the subject; I shall watch with interest.

 

Gerald Downs: I’m not an ‘F Trouper’. (Why do folk on this list so enjoy over-simplifying the position of others?). We have no knowledge of the transmission/reliability of any of the texts, Q or F. I just don’t agree with you that a text is proven corrupt by variability in the iambic line.  As to continuation, yes, time is consuming is; why help it along? You clearly have some considerable portion of it on your hands but I have rather a lot of work to be getting on with. You’re welcome to your perspective and I’ll stay with mine.

 

My de-lurking on this list has only confirmed me in my reasons for not participating in the first place.  I shall now re-don the cloak of invisibility. Pretend I wasn't here.

 

Ros Barber

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Sidney Lubow < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         January 29, 2014 at 10:49:42 PM EST

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Scansion

 

Is Tony Burton so stressed and now looking to cut down the Forest for the TRochEEs—with a power saw?

 

Sid Lubow

 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.