- January 10 2011 Updated Scansion.
- May 10, 2009 – New Post : Bright Star by John Keats, His Sonnet
- March 19 2009 John Donne & his Sonnet Death be not proud… . [This sonnet is so misread by contemporary readers that it might as well be a companion to this post on Shakespeare’s sonnet.]
- Feb. 23 2009 Milton, Blank Verse, and Paradise Lost.
- A companion guide to this one is the Annotated To be or Not to be. Don’t forget to check out some of my poetry while you’re picking my brains – I do write some good stuff. And let me know if this was helpful or if, especially, there’s a question you would like answered. I have written other posts on Iambic Pentameter including guides to the scansion of Iambic Pentameter (with more examples from Shakespeare) and a look at Chaucer’s Iambic Pentameter. I just completed a guide to Shakespearean, Petrarchan and Spenserian Sonnets. I’ve also written a detailed guide to Haiku (if you’re interested). (Further links on other Sonnets are at the bottom of this post.) According to my Stats page, this has become one of my most popular posts; and no one is commenting! Just say hello or thanks – I like hearing from readers.
- February 22, 2009 – If you enjoy Frost, you might like reading Birches along with a color coded scansion of Birches included in my post on Frost’s Mending Wall. To find all the posts I’ve written on Robert Frost, click here.
- April 23 2009: One Last Request! I love comments. If you’re a student, just leave a comment with the name of your high school or college. It’s interesting to me to see where readers are coming from and why they are reading these posts. :-)
What possible use could scansion be?
A masterfully written metrical poem has two stories to tell – two tales: one in its words; the other in its meter. In Shakespeare’s hands, the meter tells us about the writer, the speaker of the sonnet – something we might easily miss.
Meter is of no use to free verse poets or reader’s of free verse. But to poet’s writing meter, it provides a tool, an extra layer of meaning, counterpoint and play. And to readers of metered poetry, knowing that there’s an underlying pattern informs the language and meaning of the poem. In the hands of a skilled poet (Shakespeare, Keats, Wilbur, Frost, Browning), the tension between language and meter is an art form.
I’ll look at other poets and poems, because it’s fun to do, like sleuthing, but I wanted to start with Sonnet 116 because it’s so famous and so frequently misread. These days, I suspect most readers, without a knowledge of meter, would read the poem as follows:
This reading would be acceptable if this were a free verse poem. Since there’s no metrical pattern in free verse one is free to put the emphasis (ictus) wherever one wishes (within reason) , depending on ones subjective interpretation of the poem. But, in Shakespeare’s day, so many variants in so short a space would have landed him in critical hot water with his contemporaries and with the reading public. (In his shorter poems, at least, Shakespeare was much more conservative, leaving the more daring flights of metrical variation to his contemporary, John Donne – who was, regularly, skewered for his turgid meter and blank verse.) But the first line’s two trochaic feet (Let me | not to ) would have been daring even for Donne – (trochaic feet are the reverse of iambic feet in that the stressed syllable is first and the unstressed second). Two such variant feet at the start of a sonnet was practically unheard of. Only one of John Donne’s Sonnets, the most controversial metrist of the day, could be construed to begin with two trochaic feet.
Yet even here, knowing that Donne was a skillful master of diction and meter, one could consider an alternate reading (and one should, whenever diction appears to run against a meter’s pattern):
Stressing the preposition of isn’t as awkward as it might seem. Even in modern speech we sometimes stress the preposition of – as in: Well, you know, part of the fun is getting drunk. It’s a sort of sly tone of voice which, in the case of Donne’s sonnet, fits with his argument. It’s a tone of voice Donne could be angling for, made possible only if one considers the meter. The same can be said of the second line. The temptation is to read Son as strongly stressed and Thy as weakly stressed. But in keeping with the tone of the first line, putting the stress on Thy reinforces that Donne is addressing “Father” and doing so with a direct, knowing tone of voice. There is no way to know whether this is actually what Donne intended, but the reading is reinforced by the poem’s Iambic pattern.
Likewise, there’s a tone to Shakespeare’s sonnet that we miss if we fail to take the meter into account. Here is how Shakespeare most likely expected his sonnet to be read.
- January 10, 2011: I decided to bring this scansion “up to date”. As opposed to before, I’ve left all Iambic feet unmarked so the scansion is less cluttered. I’ve chosen to mark the “weak” Iambic feet, marked in yellow with weak stresses, as Pyrrhic feet, although others might be inclined to mark them as Iambic. The two feminine endings, ne|ver shaken and be taken are marked green. The Spondaic feet are purple.
The sonnet takes on a different tone and, to a certain extent, meaning. Where the first scansion has a sort of elegiac sound to it – a sort of contemplation on love – the second reading gives it a more inflected sound, as if the poet were writing with an unspoken agenda – (Shakespeare was nothing if not a dramatist).
For example, in the iambic version, the line sounds almost defensive: Let me not admit impediments – as if he were responding to some sort of accusation. Don’t accuse me of denying true love. Here is what I believe. In this wise, taking into account the pull of the iambic meter, we are already starting with a very different tone to the sonnet – in keeping with the other sonnets of his collection. They are all written as though in conversation – as though the speaker of the poet were responding to another speaker, or character, whose statements we can only hear through Shakespeare’s responses. Each one is like a monologue in a play.
Consider the change in line two:
The first is how a modern reader usually reads the close of the second line. The second reading follows the Iambic pattern of the sonnet. The second reading, putting stress on the verb – is – adds emphasis to Shakespeare’s argument, emphasis which a modern reading lacks.
At the start of the third line we have another choice:
While a pyrrhic foot isn’t unheard of in sonnets of the time, the iambic reading adds emphasis to the argument of the sonnet. Love doesn’t alter when it alteration finds. The emphasis almost lends a tone of sarcasm or perhaps scorn. Again, the iambic pentameter acts as a sort of prompter, hinting at how the sonnet should be read, in what tone and inflection.
Line five tends to be misread by inexperienced readers, especially when reading unaccented versions of the poem, which frequently print the word fixéd as fixed:
O no, it is an ever fixed mark.
The accented é indicates that the -éd of fixéd makes the word two syllables rather than one. Even in an unmarked edition, however, experienced readers of Iambic Pentameter, simply through familiarity with metrical poems, will quickly hear the missing syllable and instinctively read fixéd as two syllables.
The seventh line is the next that typically diverges between modern readers and the iambic pattern. The iambic reading renders that line as follows:
Notice that, once again, the verb is is accented. While modern readers might read this first foot as being pyrrhic (two unaccented syllables), accenting the verb adds emphasis to Shakespeare’s argument. No, he seems to be saying, it is the ever fixéd mark, it is the star. It almost feels as though he is disagreeing with someone who claims that love isn’t any of these things. And notice too, the -ery of every is elided, making it a two syllable word -though most modern readers would read it this way.
The eleventh line is the next where the emphasis differs between the iambic line and modern readers. Notice the emphasis on his implied by the iambic meter.
It’s the equivalent of saying: His brief hours and weeks won’t alter love! Once again, it’s a difference of emphasis. The iambic reading is more emphatic and more dynamic. Immediately following is a line that most would read as a variant iambic line – reading even as two syllables. Although Shakespeare doesn’t use syncope to change even to e’en, the tradition of eliding these words is well-enough established, especially in poetry of this period, that we can safely do so.
If a line can be read so that it conforms to an iambic pentameter reading, especially in poetry during this period (and for the two centuries following too) then it probably should be read that way. (Note: Robert Frost took to calling these feet loose iambs, by which he meant that a foot could conform to an iambic rhythm depending on pronunciation. It’s a useful term and reflects a convention that metrical poets have known about for hundreds of years.) Anyway, the elision of words in metrical poems is like the performance of trills in baroque and classical music. It was simply assumed that the reader (or performer in the case of music) understood the conventions of the day. Those conventions didn’t need to be spelled out. That was a long time ago, though. Nowadays, those conventions need to be relearned if one wants to read a poem the way it was read in its day. In a similar vein, and during the last thirty years, old conventional practices were relearned and rediscovered in classical music performance. These days, such performances are called Historically Informed Performances. Likewise, reading a Sonnet or Blank Verse passage with an awareness of the metrical pattern underlying it, might as well be called Historically Informed Readings.
[Just as an aside. Tooting my own horn. Helen Vendler states the following: “No reader, to my knowledge, has seen Let me not to the marriage of true minds as a coherent refutation of the extended implied argument of an opponent, and this represents an astonishing history of critical oversight.” Well, I’ve been reading this sonnet (most of them for that matter) in just this fashion for over 20 years. Her book was published in 1997. So, Helen, if you should read this blog, take comfort. You weren’t the first.]
So far, the rhymes have alternated ABAB, CDCD, EFEF. Now comes the final couplet, GG – a Shakespearean Sonnet. Shakespearean Sonnets heat the metal through the first 12 lines then, when the working out of the argument is white hot, he lays it to the anvil and strikes:
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
My intention hasn’t been to interpret the poem, though some interpretation arises simply by reading it through the lense of meter. Many critics are troubled by the series of negatives in this poem and in its last line – never, nor, no. I’m not as troubled by the negatives. Shakespeare’s last line is almost a dare. I dare you to prove me wrong! Even in offering the possibility that he could be proved in error, he (almost sarcastically) refutes the possibility by offering the impossible retort that proving such an error would mean he never writ and that no man ever loved. Since we know already that he wrote and that men have loved, Shakespeare urges us toward the inevitable conclusion that he will never be proven in error.
The one metrical nicety to notice is in the final line. An iambic reading urges the following:
Notice the iambic emphasis on no. The modern reader might be tempted to gloss over the third foot as pyrrhic (see the “modern” scansion above), putting the emphasis on man. The iambic reading gives extra force to no, lending to the poet’s voice a kind of anger – as if both daring to be proven wrong and contemptuously dismissive of any effort to try. Go ahead, he seems to say, try! Prove me wrong! If you do, then no man ever loved! The equanimity of a modern reading, of an innocent love poem, vanishes. This is a sonnet with a transcendent axe to grind.
Reading the poem by the meter, we discover a very different kind of poem – one of refutation, of a speaker refuting an unspoken argument, not of impersonal definition. In this third post on Iambic Pentameter, I wanted to demonstrate just how powerfully a knowledge of scansion can inform and alter a poem’s meaning. If you have any questions or comments, please post.
February 4rth 2013: I was asked if I could read 116. What follows is about my 21rst try. I wanted to communicate the sense that this is half of an argument, like a speech in one of Shakespeare’s plays. See what you think:
I’ll be examining more poems as time permits – especially Robert Frost.
Follow up posts:
Thomas Middleton’s Blank Verse
Geoffrey Chaucer’s Iambic Pentameter
John Milton’s Sonnet: When I consider…
Hi! I’m here via the comment you left on a post in pfour.wordpress.com, about the video of this sonnet. I’m the reader — and first, let me say thank you for your kind words.
Second, let me say: /wow/. This post has me simply beaming. I think you’ve really articulated perfectly the way Shakespeare uses meter to shape a performance, and I am most certainly going to keep it in mind next time I approach performing poetry.
I’m looking forward to reading your other analyses, and I hope you’ll visit the pfour project again!
Thank god for you, Patrick! I knew there had to be something more to this poem than many idealistic or religulous teenage girls have taken it for when posting it upon their bedroom walls. I love Shakespeare at his most vicious. If, at the very least, you have managed here to bring out (through the preferred meter of the day, no less!) the sarcasm and argumentativeness of this poem, then you have also granted it vigour and coherence within the whole sonnet cycle that saves it from such usual ethereal romanticizations as it has been subject to in recent days.
I like it this way too.
There are *so* many poems by the Elizabethans that are just like this… but Shakespeare especially.
Pingback: Room to Write p7: Exploring Form « The Fallen Monkey
Thank you so much for existing. And for your very intelligent and thorough analysis to be still here. I’ll use it with my students. I’m an Italian teacher of English at high school and I love poetry … trying to get my students to love it , too
Thank you, Nadia. It’s a privilege to hear from so many parts of the world. :-)
This analysis is amazing! You are one of the most insightfull people in the world, life without shakespear sonnets analysis is just pointless. I am glad to say I have visited this absolutley amazing website, everyone is just so amazing. Thank you so much!! ily…
so freaking amazing
Can you explain the difference between the two types of ictus – ie when one looks like an acute and the other a grave (french terms -sorry didn’t know how else to explain)?
Hi Fiona, check out the following post: Iambic Pentameter: The Basics. Let me know if this helps you. :-)
Im from Canadian University College, Alberta. I enjoyed reading your ideas and loved exploring how the poem can be read by meter and its implecations when done so. A lot of fun. I was doing research for this as a final paper. Cool stuff!!!
Thanks for your comment! I’m glad that what I wrote was helpful. I’ll write more. :-)
Thank you so much for this post! I’m teaching a college course on “Shakespeare for Non-majors” and though I myself have a love for the music of metrical poetry, I have struggled to convey its value to students. This is the first time I’ve come across such a cogent explanation and argument! Thanks also for the post about approaching sonnets as dialogues or conversations. I’ll be drawing on these posts quite liberally in my sonnet lesson plans–thanks immensely for the insights!
Thanks Kelli. Wow and good luck with the course!
I just re-read the post on 116. It’s full of typos. Good grief! But your comment is the best sort of encouragement. If you ever have questions on Shakespeare or poetry, you know where to find me. :-)
Yes, please keep writing about scansion. I was able to come to the same conclusion about the couplet, but not through scansion; although I wish. I guess I understood enough about Shakespeare to know that he must have known that no one could argue that he hadn’t written or that “no man ever loved”; and therefore, no one would dare refute. Are you saying that if one understands that the poem was meant to be written in iambic pentameter that one should begin by assuming the iambic pattern? If so, how does one know when it varies? I still have difficulty with that.
Good morning. :-)
//Are you saying that if one understands that the poem was meant to be written in iambic pentameter that one should begin by assuming the iambic pattern?//
Yes. Almost without fail, you can assume that any poem written before the 20th century uses meter. That said, some poets are better at using meter than others and some eras were better at it than others…. but that’s another post, I guess. Yes, if the poem is written metrically, then you should begin by assuming a metrical pattern of some sort. It may not be iambic. It could be trochaic or anapestic.
//If so, how does one know when it varies?//
English is an accentual language, meaning that some words will receive greater stress than others. Imagine if I were to read your question as follows:
If so, how does one know when it varies?
The whole thing begins to sound a little strange, right? Like the person asking the question doesn’t know how to speak English (or isn’t familiar with the stress patterns). Every sentence in the English language, in a sense, has a meter. What if the question were asked like this:
If so, how does one know when it varies?
That makes a little more sense. Or how about this?
If so, how does one know when it varies?
Also acceptable, but do you notice how stressing different words signals a slightly different tone and thrust to the question? Now, let’s turn this question into Iambic Pentameter:
If so|, how does| one know| when me|ter varies?
Do you see the variant foot? It’s the last foot. The last foot has three syllables instead of two, so it’s called a feminine ending. That’s a variant foot. Now, if you didn’t know this question were part of an Iambic Pentameter poem, you could justifiably read it as follows:
If so,| how does |one know |when me|ter varies?
In this case, the first two feet would be variant feet. However, the rule is as follows: If you can read a foot as Iambic, then you probably should. So, in the context of a poem, you would probably want to revert to the first version because the poet is probably taking advantage of the meter to deliberately and selectively stress certain words. In this case so and does. Sometimes, though, the English language gives you no choice but to break the metrical rhythm. For instance:
Take this sentence. The first two feet aren’t Iambs.
You really can’t read the sentence as follows:
Take this |sentence. |The first |two feet |aren’t Iambs.
That’s because the first two feet would be variant feet in an otherwise Iambic Pentameter poem. You would have to read it as follows:
Take this | sentence. | The first| two feet| aren’t Iambs.
The first two feet are variant feet. They break the Iambic pattern. They are trochaic feet. (And once again, the final foot is a feminine ending because it ends with an extra weak, third syllable.) Does that help?
Well at least I can start by assuming the Iambic pattern for sonnets; but it will take me a while to catch on to the variations. For example, when trying to scan other sonnets, such as Keat’s “When I have fears” or Rossetti’s “The Sonnet,” I couldn’t tell if the iambic pattern was natural or if I was forcing it. That also leaves questions about other poems that don’t follow Iambic pentameter but some other pattern. I can see I have some work to do, but your reply was a tremendous help.
Hi Debra! For more help, check out the following posts:
Iambic Pentameter: The Basics
Iambic Pentameter: Variants I
There’s also a third post, Iambic Pentameter, Variants II, but that last post is pretty stiff stuff and probably more than you need to know.
By way of comparison, Timothy Steele wrote a post on meter. You can find it here. I find his prose just as stiff as his poetry, but there’s good information there. (I guess scholars can’t be taken seriously unless they write in a starched shirt.)
hello there! might want to do ^ the same thing for Shakespeare’s sonnet 6? :P
I’ll consider it. Not one of his best sonnets but still Shakespeare. Why *this* one?
Thank you for the blog! I am reading this poem at a wedding in Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK, next month and am hoping I can read it correctly now!
Well — given that you will be reading the poem with a proper British accent, you’re already ahead of the game. :-)
please mention the linewise variation of shakespeare’s sonnet no116
Pingback: … Which alters when it alteration finds… | Too much
Pingback: John Keats: “Bright Star” (Sonnet) / “Estrella Brillante” (Soneto).- | La Audacia de Aquiles
Hi, I’ve just started reading a book you recommended, ‘Shakespeare’s Metrical Art’ by George T. Wright, and I notice he assumes variation in the line ‘When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes’, where he assumes that both ‘in’ and ‘and’ are unstressed; and in the line ‘When to the sessions of sweet silent thought’, where he assumes ‘to’ and ‘of’ are unstressed. Do you believe he’s wrong? I am currently practising sonnet 106, and am undecided whether to stress ‘in’ on lines 1 & 5, and ‘of ‘ on lines 2 & 5.
No, I wouldn’t say that George Wright is wrong. Everything I know about meter I learned from Mr. Wright. :-) So, I can’t imagine a time I would dare disagree with him — only very slightly. Besides, meter isn’t an entirely objective science. Meter is only a framework (or a guide) on which good poets build their syntax. So, what’s my advice? Try reading the lines according to the meter. It *may* make sense to “promote” (as they say in metrical parlance) words like “to” and “of” from unstressed to stressed. My favorite example is:
One *can* stress the word *that*, but one can also stress *is* (following the meter) and make dramatic sense of the line. Reading with the meter subtly changes the meaning of the line and adds dramatically. If you can do the same with the sonnets, then read with the meter. If not, then there’s probably more power in treating the meter as having variant feet. For instance, I personally think there’s more to be gained and more power in emphasizing sweet:
I also see nothing gained by emphasizing ‘to’ over ‘When’. Same here:
The disruptive ‘When’ and ‘men’s’ are more powerful when stressed (for being disruptive). There’s nothing gained, in meaning or dramatically, by emphasizing ‘in’ or ‘and’.
To sort this all out you need to pretend you’re an actor. Read the lines different ways and see which makes the most sense, which is the most meaningful. Meter derives it’s power both in ‘promoting’ words unexpectedly and by lending power to words through their disruption of the pattern. Too much disruption and meter’s rhythm and pattern is lost; and you end up with free verse. The skilled poet strikes a balance.
Thank you – that’s a very thorough and helpful response!
I hope you’ll forgive me for pointing out, though, that you already have disagreed with Mr Wright in this article: his analysis of the meter of Sonnet 116 is very different to yours!
Shhhhhhh! Sheesh! I’m trying to show some humility before the master and you’re blowing my cover. Truth is, neither of us knows what Shakespeare intended. Only Shakespeare. You’ll just have to decide which of us makes the more persuasive argument on your own. ;-)
Patrick, I would be bolder with the emphasis in the opening line: I would accent ‘Let’, so you have an emphatic opening spondee with LET ME; and I would place a full accent on ‘to’. If you read this scansion out loud, and commit to the emphasis, it reads well: it becomes very engaged, and reveals a wonderful assonance between ‘to’ and ‘true’ (matching the alliteration of ‘me’, ‘marriage’ and ‘minds’); and it also reveals a very elegant structure where not only is the line neatly book-ended at either end with a spondee, but these two spondees are beautifully counterpointed by an appended pyrrhic bang in the middle of the next line; furthermore, the opening spondee matches the opening spondee of the first line of the next quatrain (expanded into a dispondee in the opening line of the third quatrain).
What do you think?!
As a personal matter, I still prefer the emphasis on *me*. This starts the poem out with a defensive stance that makes the poem feel more dramatic than “poetic”. But that’s personal preference. If you can read it the other way, and make it work, then that’s the reader’s (or actor’s) license. I’m probably not so inclined to put much weight in structural symmetries — which may or may not have been intended — but then I’m always interested in the author’s intentions (which runs counter to much postmodern criticism).
We agree on a lot more than you seem to think, Patrick! My own scansion reads:
LET ME not TO the MArriage of TRUE MINDS/
I happen to agree with you that the sonnet starts out with a ‘defensive’ stance, rendering it dramatic rather than merely ‘poetic’. And I feel my scansion, far from contradicting yours, adds to the defiantly assertive emphasis.
I have made two modifications to your scansion: a full stress on ‘Let’, and a full stress on ‘to’. I think in practise it is impossible to avoid stressing the word ‘Let’, and as far as I can hear, that is borne out by your recording. With the emphasis on ‘me’, I would see an opening spondee as a given.
Then there’s my emphasis on ‘to’. One thing that might lend support to that reading is the hypothesis put forward by many that when Shakespeare puts two words next to each other where the first word ends with the same consonant sound with which the second word begins ( eg. ‘not to’ ), he intended both consonant sounds to be articulated, creating a ‘separation’. Having read a lot of Shakespeare, I find this a convincing hypothesis; and if we were to accept that hypothesis, it would mean that an emphasis on either one word or the other – either ‘not’ or ‘to’ – is inevitable.
My second observation is that your delivery, with hardly any accent on ‘to’, resulted in a flattening of the rising, lifting iambic rhythm for the rest of the opening sentence. I would argue that the additional emphasis on ‘to’, maintains the defiantly assertive emphasis initiated by the emphasis on ‘me’. And that, by this reading, the rising iambic rhythm continues to serve the defiant, assertive tone very effectively; whereas by failing to emphasise ‘to’, you felt the need to flatten the iambic rhythm.
If you don’t happen to agree that the metrical symmetry provided by my scansion is something to put much weight in, fair enough. I would only add that I feel this metrical symmetry (including the assertive double iamb on either side of the appended pyrrhic in the second line) results in an accumulative emphasis which is dramatically effective.
Incidentally, I’d like to thank you for the time you’ve taken to write up these articles: they’re fascinating, and your enthusiasm is vey infectious. Also, it was only when I came across your site that I learnt how little I’d understood about metre, and just how important it was; and the much deeper understanding of metre I’ve developed since has hugely enhanced my appreciation of verse.
One final point regarding the scansion: I would say that both the alliteration of ‘me’, ‘marriage’ and ‘minds’, and the assonance of ‘to’ and ‘true’ strongly support the defiant emphasis. Without the emphasis on ‘to’, the assonance is lost, and the impact of the alliteration is dampened without the more emphatic iambic rhythm.
Well, I don’t have a ouija board that lets me consult with Shakespeare on these matters. :-) I don’t see any reason why your reading shouldn’t be equally valid (as long as you don’t go putting trochees where they don’t belong — which you don’t). But I still like my reading better. =) But that’s a purely subjective opinion. I think yours is equally valid and you make a reasonable case. Maybe the next reader to comment will prefer your scansion, and that would be fine by me.
Good day, everyone!
I’m writting an article about scansions in English language, comparatively to scansion system in Russian language . I’m afraid, i’ve got some problems with 53 sonnet.
I’d be very grateful, if someone could make such a favor!
Shakespeare’s 53? And what help do you need?
I need scansion, and stressed syllables…
Okay, Sonnet 53 by which poet?
Shakespeare’s Sonnet 53: “What is your substance, whereof are you made”
What is| your sub|stance, where|of are| you made,
That mil|lions of |strange sha|dows on |you tend?
Since eve|ry one |hath eve|ry one, |one shade,
And you, |but one, |can eve|ry sha|dow lend.
Describe |Ado|nis, and| the coun|terfeit
Is poor|ly im|ita|ted af|ter you.
On He|len’s cheek |all art| of beau|ty set,
And you |in Gre|cian tires| are pain|ted new.
Speak of |the spring| and foi|son of |the year;
The one| doth sha|dow of |your beau|ty show,
The o|ther as| your boun|ty doth| appear,
And you| in eve|ry bles|sèd shape| we know.
In all |exter|nal grace| you have| some part,
But you |like none,| none you,| for con|stant heart.
There you go. The feet without an accented (bolded) syllable are phyrric. The first foot of line 9 is trochaic. The 3rd foot of the final line is imabic — emphasis on you. Got questions? Ask away.
P.S. The first foot of the first line might be read as a trochee, but reading it with the meter encourages us to put the emphasis on is – a nice touch in my opinion. Shifts the emphasis just a little — as if Shakespeare were in conversation rather than rhetorically posing the question.
Thank you very much!
Good luck. Just remember that there’s some flexibility in any scansion. One can, for dramatic purposes, deliberately shift the ictus in some feet, but I think the scansion above is representative.
Pingback: 3.1: Patterns in Poetry | Learning Spaces
I’m doing a project on this Sonnet and this page helped so much! Thank you!
You’re welcome. :)
This is fantastic! I read your post just before teaching my freshman college students about sonnets, and this had a huge influence on how I taught them this particular sonnet. It was fun to read it both ways and ask them to notice how the meaning of the poem changes when the meter is correctly placed. Thank you!
Hey gryffinkat, thanks for that. :) It’s cool to know that a new generation might learn to appreciate meter as something more than just “a form”.
Thank you for all the effort you’ve put into describing the workings of meter. I read this and the blog on basics and variants and found them really helpful, with writing poems in meter and reading.
I read a book on meter once, suggested somewhere online, and it wasn’t dedicated enough to all the variants and varying scansion. It didn’t mention amphibrachs, which brought about a lot of confusion. You helped me clear up all of the fine stuff. I am doing a Shakespeare reading project, up to All’s Well. Looking forward to the sonnets!
Are you a Harold Bloom fan?
Hi Arietty, I’m glad to know my posts were helpful. :) I take time out for Shakespeare reading projects too. I was thinking I’d read something like Twelfth Night.
By reputation, Harold Bloom sounds amazing. He apparently has a photographic memory and can recite hundreds of poems by memory. I’m sure if I were to hear him lecture, I would greatly enjoy it. On the other hand, I’ve always found his critical writing, especially on Shakespeare, to be pretty dull, if not a shade vacuous, and his book “Anxiety of Influence” was interesting in a theoretical way, but not true to my own experience. On Shakespeare, I would recommend Isaac Azimov’s overview of Shakespeare to Bloom’s, for example, and if one is looking for that sort of book. I always walk away thinking that Bloom treats poets and their poetry as a way to talk about himself.
Thank you for the recommendations!
I love Twelft Night. Such a crazy cast of characters, and great comedy.
That wasn’t my experience of Bloom, although I do prefer when he writes Shakespeare than other. The personal tidbits I felt add to his writing, and is part of staying true to his motto of keeping litery criticism alive by keeping it a form of literature.
This was so useful! Thanks!
You’re welcome! :)
Pingback: Notes: September 20, 2020 – 1:00 PM (PDT) to 3:00 PM (PDT) |
Cannot even put into words how much I enjoyed this post. I stumbled upon your blog trying to win an argument that the opening line of To Be or Not To Be isn’t actually perfect iambic pentameter (thank you for proving me right with your notes on the extra foot!) and ADORED your analysis of that soliloquy so much I wanted to read more of your blog, and when I saw you’d done a post on my favorite sonnet I HAD to click. Wow. Wow wow wow. I’ve read this poem a hundred times and you made it feel so fresh and alive with your analysis. The repeated emphasis on the verb “is” is something I’d never really considered before and loved reading about. And then when I got to your section on the final lines essentially being a dare I GASPED. I’ve said these exact words SO many times and they’ve fallen on deaf ears, and it just felt so exciting and gratifying to read someone whose opinion I so respect and whose writing I so admire share my view. I just had to say something in the comments because I’m so excited to have found this blog and have already bookmarked it. I know it’s been a few years since there’s been any activity in these comments, and that the post itself is over a decade old, but I do hope you see this and just know that you’ve made my day and I think your work with this blog is really incredible. Thank you so much for these posts.
Thanks Rachel. Sorry I didn’t approve this earlier! I thought you had already commented and so didn’t need approval. In a world where it seems no two people can agree on anything, it *is* nice every now and then to find a kindred spirit.