| ||
Establishing Shakespeare's Text: Notes on Short
Lines and the
Problem of Verse Division
by
Fredson Bowers
Because of its abrupt break with regularity, the Shakespearean short line within a pentameter speech is immediately noticed by the ear and, in a reading edition, by the eye. Some problems are associated with these short internal lines, principally whether they are authoritative or the result of compositorial or scribal mislineation, or whether they may be part of a general mislineation that requires the isolation of some adjacent line of the text as the internal short line intended. Such internal lines, usually inserted for special rhetorical effects, are relatively few in comparison with Shakespeare's use of short lines in other and more varied circumstances. Thus they form no part of the present inquiry.
Shakespeare uses short lines most frequently to divide a pentameter between two speakers. Next in order they may be used to end a speech but with no metrical link with the following speech, which begins with a full pentameter or with prose. Alone or in a series, single short lines without metrical relationship either to each other or to what precedes or follows may punctuate otherwise regular pentameter dialogue. Single short lines of what is presumably verse (but often subject only to arbitrary assignment as verse or as prose) may appear between prose speeches or between a verse and a prose speech. Least commonly, an unlinked metrically short line may begin a regular pentameter speech.
Not one of these categories but presents a difficulty to an editor that in some manner may be connected with the basic problem of the linked, or divided, line in which a pentameter is split between two or more speakers. It is idle to comment that on a practical level many although not all problems would disappear if typographically the dialogue were edited as it appears in Renaissance printed editions, which in this respect follow the conventions of the dramatic manuscripts of the period. That is, the two or more parts of a verse divided between speakers are
Modern editors have devoted more attention to purifying the language of the plays by emendation (or de-emendation) than to a critical examination, with a view to mending its faults, of the actual workings of Steevens' metrical system. Comparison of the most esteemed twentieth-century editions of Shakespeare indicates that—transmitted through the
It is essential to learn whether Shakespeare had certain favorite patterns, a recognition of which might solve at least the more obvious problems. The purpose of the present study is to make a start on the whole complex matter by distinguishing certain patterns and offering a few limited answers, limited at least as applied to the solution of the most acute problems. That there are problems may be illustrated by the following examples from Measure for Measure:
None, but such remedie, as to save a head
To cleave a heart in twaine.
Claudio.
But is there anie?
Isabella.
Yes brother, you may live;
If you'l implore it, that will free your life (TLN 1271-76);
Ile pray a thousand praiers for thy death,
No word to save thee.
Claudio.
Nay heare me Isabell.
Isabella.
Oh fie, fie, fie:
Thy sinn's not accidentall, but a Trade (1367-71);
The weariest, and most loathed worldly life
That Age, Ache, perjury, and imprisonment
Can lay on nature, is a Paradise
To what we feare of death.
Isabella.
Alas, alas.
Claudio.
Sweet Sister, let me live.
What sinne you do, to save a brothers life,
Nature dispenses with the deede so farre (TLN 1348-54);
. . . . This night's the time
That I should do what I abhorre to name,
Or else thou diest to morrow.
Claudio.
Thou shalt not do't.
Isabella.
O, were it but my life,
I'de throw it downe for your deliverance (TLN 1317-22).
Before one can understand the conditions under which Shakespeare would link certain short lines but not others, one must trace the patterns of unlinked verse lines of less than pentameter length. The three major categories are (1) unlinked part lines ending a speech, (2) unlinked part lines beginning a speech, and (3) unlinked independent short lines that are themselves a complete brief speech.
Non-linking short lines concluding a speech occur in two major situations depending upon whether it is or is not theoretically possible for them to be completed by the short line of the next speech. Unquestioned short lines that cannot be completed are most frequently found ending a speech before a speech that begins with a full pentameter:
Will he be satisfied.
Metellus.
Is there no voyce more worthy then my owne (JC 1254-56).
The businesse she hath broached in the State, Cannot endure my absence.
Enobarbus.
And the businesse you have broach'd heere cannot be without you, especially that of Cleopatra's . . . (Ant. 270-273).
Follow me, and recive't Exeunt. (Ant. 1009-10)
The incidence of these short concluding lines rises with the years, although erratically. The Two Gentlemen of Verona has about seven,[5] of which one is an exit line; the Dream (Shakespeare's most regular play) has only one; Romeo and Juliet has thirteen, of which five are exit lines and one before prose; The Merchant of Venice ten; As You Like It fourteen; Much Ado eleven; Twelfth Night fourteen (five before prose); Julius Cœsar thirty-one (three as exit lines and two before prose); Measure for Measure about forty-two (seven before prose); All's Well twenty-two; Antony and Cleopatra about sixty; Coriolanus about forty-seven; Winter's Tale about twenty-five; Cymbeline about twenty-eight; Tempest about twenty-nine.
Unlinked short lines beginning a pentameter speech are much rarer. (Ben Jonson, incidentally, declined to write them.) In situations where no possibility exists that they could complete a preceding line, they appear after the full pentameter line of a preceding speech:
If you do finde them deckt with Ceremonies.
Marullus.
May we do so?
You know it is the Feast of Lupercall (JC 72-75).
There she appear'd indeed: or my reporter devis'd well for her.
Enobarbus.
I will tell you,
The Barge she sat in, like a burnisht Throne
Burnt on the water: the Poope was beaten Gold (Ant. 899-903).
What Lucius, hoe?
I cannot, by the progresse of the Starres,
Give guesse how neere to day—Lucius, I say? (JC 616-618).
These statistics showing the general prevalence of independent short lines ending speeches but the relative rarity of unlinked short beginning lines carry over, significantly, into another situation—that in which an independent part-line separate speech either completes a pentameter begun by the short ending of the preceding speech, or else begins a pentameter completed by the short opening of the next speech.
To undergoe such ample grace, and honour,
It is Lord Angelo.
Enter Angelo.
Duke.Looke where he comes. (MM 26-29);
Short line begins a pentameter
Isabella.
Oh, let him marry her.
Lucio.
This is the point.
The Duke is very strangely gone from hence (MM 400-402);
Passage with both
Bin lesse, and so more equall ballasting
To thee Posthumus.
Belarius.
He wrings at some distresse.
Guiderius.
Would I could free't.
Arviragus.
Or I, what ere it be,
What paine it cost, what danger: Gods!
Belarius.
Hearke Boyes. (Cymb. 2171-77)
Even in these circumstances of linked speeches, the preponderance of short ending versus short beginning lines is marked. For instance, in The Tempest there are fifty-two such ending versus seven such beginning linked lines; in Cymbeline as many as seventy-three short ending lines completed by an independent part-line speech as against only eight short linked beginnings; in Coriolanus the figures are eighty-three as against sixteen. Once more the statistics are five or more to one that when linking part lines are present Shakespeare will end a speech with a short line than that he will begin a speech with less than a full pentameter.
Indeed, the only frequent use of part beginning lines is this linkage (more and more often as time passes) with short endings to induce a flexible and varied flow of pentameter dialogue verse. The division of a pentameter between two multi-line speeches grows on Shakespeare remarkably. An exact count for any play is impossible to make in the present stage of our knowledge, since it may often be a matter of opinion whether two short lines are independent or were intended to join to form a pentameter. A rough count shows something like this (the figures in parentheses are the through-line-number counts, less epilogues, as found in Hinman): Dream (2152) about 35 or fewer; Merchant (2738) about 80 or fewer; Romeo and Juliet (3185) about 80; Julius Cœsar (2730) about 125; Much Ado (2684) about 35; As You Like It (2775) about 35; Twelfth Night (2558) about 42; All's Well (3072) about 135; Measure for Mesaure (2938) about 150; Antony and Cleopatra (3636) somewhere between 440 and 460; Coriolanus (3838) about 390; Winter's Tale (3369) about 335; Cymbeline (3819) about 400; Tempest (2319) about 220.
Before Edward II with its 29 divided pentameters, Marlowe's mighty line admitted practically no divided verses in texts that can be authenticated.[6] Similarly, as Shakespeare's verse increased in flexibility the number of divided verses expanded. For example, in the 83 verse lines of Cymbeline I.i—an expository dialogue between two gentlemen—there are 10 divided pentameters, 2 independent short lines, and 71 regular verses. More to the point, the 10 divided verses appear in 19 speeches, which means that except for a separate short-line speech at I.i.62 (Globe), TLN 72, each speech ends with a part line completed by the opening part line of the next speech. (The second separate short line is at the exeunt.) The second scene contains 178 lines and 39 speeches, linked by some 27 divided pentameters. Only six speeches in this scene are not
As one would expect, accompanying the rise in this incidence of division is a rise in the number of irregular divided lines either in the sense that they are deficient or hypermetrical (and thus perhaps intended not as linked but as separate lines), or else in the sense that choices exist as to which two short lines were intended for linking and which third was to remain independent as in the illustrations from Measure for Measure above. The Dream has not a single such problem within its complete metrical regularity. The Two Gentlemen has about five possible metrical linking irregularities or questions of association in division, Twelfth Night about eight, but Measure for Measure close to thirty, Coriolanus about twenty. Cymbeline is unusual in posing no more than about fifteen possible difficulties, but Antony and Cleopatra (the metrically most irregular of Shakespeare's plays) is equally unusual in offering more than forty-five.
Outside of a few specific exceptions, no reason exists why in most circumstances the statistics about the incidence of short lines in the two different positions should not suggest the principle by which the usual problems may be resolved. This is, whenever a choice exists as to which two short lines should form a pentameter and which third should stand by itself, the odds strongly favor the principle that in ordinary circumstances a short line beginning a speech should be linked in preference to the short ending line of a speech. The general pattern of Shakespeare's versification indicates that unlinked final short lines are common whereas unlinked short beginning lines are rare and usually recognizable as inserted for special purposes. This general pattern observable in situations where no choice exists can be applied with confidence to the selection of the short lines to link when a metrical option is present. If so, then instead of the traditional arrangement of the first example from Measure for Measure given above as
Claudio.
But is there anie?
Isabella.
Yes brother, you may live;
But is there anie?
Isabella.
Yes brother, you may live.
Claudio.
Thou shalt not do't.
Isabella.
O, were it but my life,
I'de throw it downe for your deliverance
Thou shalt not do't.
Isabella.
O, were it but my life, . . .
Roderigo.
I would not follow him then.
Iago.
O, sir, content you;
I follow him to serve my turn upon him (I.i.40-42)
I would not follow him then.
Iago.
O Sir content you (Oth. 44-45).
Because of the great predominance of short closing over short opening lines in dialogue where no linkage is in question, the burden of proof may be said to fall on an editor who associates an intervening short line with the preceding part line closing a speech instead of the following part line beginning a speech, as in the illustration above from Othello. On the other hand, Shakespeare does use a small number of short opening lines in unlinked dialogue and it is worth surveying these to see if they have any special identifying characteristics as against the purely random (except for occasional exit speeches) use of short closing lines. Analysis discloses that the majority indeed shows a pattern indicating a structural or rhetorical purpose. For example, the break may be syntactical as in
May we do so?
You know it is the Feast of Lupercall (JC 74-75);
Themselves, when they be felt.
Messenger.
I have done my duty.
Cleopatra.
Is he married?
I cannot hate thee worser then I do (Ant. 1136-39).
Intervening stage-business may justify a short line:
Good Madam patience.
Cleopatra.
What say you? Strikes him.
Hence horrible Villaine, or Ile spurne thine eyes (Ant. 1103-5).
In the next illustration a change of address (from command to soliloquy) fortifies the call to Lucius:
What Lucius, hoe?
I cannot, by the progresse of the Starres,
Give guesse how neere to day—Lucius, I say? (JC 616-618)
Valentine.
Will you make haste? Exit.
Proteus.
I will.
Even as one heate, another heate expels,
Or as one naile, by strength drives out another.
So the remembrance of my former Love (TGV 845-849);
Jessica.
Farewell good Lancelet. [Exit Lancelet.]
Alacke, what hainous sinne is it in me
To be ashamed to be my Fathers childe (MV 786-788).
Common are changes of address from one character to another:
Dispatch. Exit Ladies.
Now Maister Doctor, have you brought those drugges? (Cymb. 494-495);
I am Marble constant: now the fleeting Moone
No Planet is of mine.
Enter Guardsman, and Clowne.
Guardsman.This is the man.
Cleopatra.
Avoid, and leave him. Exit Guardsman.
Hast thou the pretty worme of Nylus there (Ant. 3490-95);
Lartius.
Thou worthiest Martius,
[To Titus] Go sound thy Trumpet in the Market place (Cor. 599-600).
Whatever the situation, almost invariably some distinct syntactical pause, some break, with or without stage-business or change of address, is made after the opening short line:
Nay, stay a little:
Were you but riding forth to ayre your selfe (Cymb. 129-130);
Benvolio.
Part Fooles,
Put up your Swords, you know not what you do (Rom. 61);
Camillo.
My Lord,
Goe then; and with a countenance as cleare (WT 443-444);
Lepidus.
Noble Friends:
That which combin'd us was most great, and let not (Ant. 701-702);
Choller?
Were I as patient as the midnight sleep (Cor. 1777);
Isabella.
Why,[7]
As all comforts are: most good, most good indeede (MM 1263-64).
The urgency of the special effect that Shakespeare sought from the opening short line of a speech leads him, on rare occasions, into the unusual metrical pattern whereby normally unlinkable short lines end and begin two successive speeches:
Duke.
'Tis certaine then for Cyprus:
Marcus Luccicos is not he in Towne? (Oth. 373-375)
Then violent'st Contrariety.
Enter Messenger.
Messenger.You are sent for to the Senate:
A fearefull Army, led by Caius Martius (Cor. 2985-88).
The first comes under the head of change of address, which frequently calls for a short line, but the second is purely rhetorical.
In contrast, the short unlinked beginning of a speech without a special purpose is so rare that many plays have none, and perhaps no more than one or two can be found legitimately in any single play among the rest.
Why who cries out on pride,
That can therein taxe any private party (AYL 1044-45);
Menenius.
Either you must
Confesse your selves wondrous Malicious (Cor. 88-89);
Duke.
There is no womans sides
Can bide the beating of so strong a passion (TN 980-981);
Imogen.
Great men
That had a Court no bigger then this Cave (Cymb. 2178-79).[8]
Unfortunately, Shakespeare does not restrict these special effects to short lines alone; indeed, the number of full pentameters containing in their first half commands, exclamations, changes of address, stage-business, and the like vastly outnumber the times that Shakespeare chooses to emphasize the same material by an isolated part line. One may open almost any play at random and come on such examples as these:
Cœsar I will: [aside] and so neere will I be,
That your best Friends shall wish I had beene further. (JC 1123-24);
Cœsar.
Are we all ready? What is now amisse,
That Cœsar and his Senate must redresse? (JC 1237-38);
Cassius.
Stoop then, and wash. How many Ages hence
Shall this our lofty Scene be acted over (JC 1326-27);
Antony.
He shall not live; looke, with a spot I dam him (JC 1860);
Menenius.
Consider this: He ha's bin bred i'th' Warres (Cor. 2062).
Of even greater pertinence, the rather uncommon cases of abrupt short beginning lines emphasized by being set off as unitary single lines
He stayes upon your will.
Anthony.
Let him appeare:
These strong Egyptian Fetters I must breake,
Or loose my selfe in dotage. (Ant. 207-210);[11]
And know how we proceede.
Aufidius.
Is it not yours?
What ever have bin thought one in this State (Cor. 316-318);
And not my Husbands Secrets?
Brutus.
O ye Gods!
Render me worthy of this Noble Wife. (JC 944-946);
There lies your way, due West.
Viola.
Then Westward hoe:
Grace and good disposition attend your Ladyship (TN 1349-51);
Your Provost knowes the place where he abides,
And he may fetch him.
Duke.
Goe, doe it instantly:
And you, my noble and well-warranted Cosen (MM 2629-32);
Silvius.
Phebe, with all my heart.
Phebe.
Ile write it strait:
The matter's in my head, and in my heart (AYL 1910-12).
These special-purpose short beginning lines, then, are so frequently linked as by no means always (or even usually) to require treatment as a separate verse. Yet even so, the independent ones offer the best evidence we have to assist an editor when problems of arrangement arise. For instance, if in two multi-verse speeches Shakespeare for a special purpose may (infrequently) end one speech with a short line and begin the next speech with an unlinked short line too,[12] then it stands to reason that on a few of the occasions when such lines could be metrically linked it is theoretically possible that Shakespeare might have intended them to stand as separate verses even though beginning a speech. Two examples may be cited where the meter encourages, if not enforces, one particular linking as against another possibility. The first is correctly lined by all editors:
Out of my sight.
Desdemona.
I will not stay to offend you.
Lodovic.
Truely [an (Q)] obedient Lady:
I do beseech your Lordship call her backe. (Oth. 2641-45)
To have him see me woman'd.
Bianca.
Why, I pray you?
Cassio.
Not that I love you not.
Bianca.
But that you do not love me.
I pray you, bring me on the way a little. (III.iv.195-197)
Bianca.
Why, I pray you?
Cassio.
Not that I love you not.
Bianca.
But that you do not love me.
I pray you bring me on the way a little (Oth. 2359-63).
However, situations do arise where metrically a free option exists to link a separate short speech either with the preceding or the following
Below the beam of sight, yet will I still
Be thus to them.
A Patrician.
You do the nobler.
Coriolanus.
I muse my mother
Does not approve me further . . . .
You do the Nobler.
Coriolanus.
I muse my Mother
Do's not approve me further, who was wont (Cor. 2091-93).
Was borne so like a soldier, that thy cheek
So much as lank'd not.
Lepidus.
'Tis pity of him.
Cœsar.
Let his shames quickly
Drive him to Rome: 'tis time we twain (I.iii.70-73);
[Alexander—correct]
Was borne so like a Souldiour, that thy cheeke
So much as lank'd not.
Lepidus.
'Tis pitty of him.
Cœsar.
Let his shames quickely
Drive him to Rome, 'tis time we twaine (Ant. 506-510)
A more extended example of the Globe and other editors' mistaken arrangement in Antony and Cleopatra comes in Act II, scene vii.
But must condemne it now: desist, and drinke.
Menas.
For this, Ile never follow
Thy paul'd Fortunes more, . . .
Anthony.
It ripen's towards it: strike the Vessells hoa.
Heere's to Cœsar.
Cœsar.
I could well forbear't, it's monstrous labour
when I wash my braine, and it grow[s] fouler.
Anthony.
Be a Child o'th' time.
Cœsar.
Possesse it, Ile make answer: but I had rather
fast from all, foure dayes, then drinke so much in one.
Enobarbus.
Ha my brave Emperour, shall we daunce now
the Egyptian Backenals, and celebrate our drinke?
Pompey.
Let's ha't good Souldier.
Anthony.
Come, let's all take hands,
Till that the conquering Wine hath steep't our sense,
In soft and delicate Lethe.
Enobarbus.
All take hands: (Ant. 1426-59);
[Globe to Riverside]
But must condemn it now. Desist, and drink.
Menas.
[Aside] For this,
I'll never follow thy pall'd fortunes more. . . .
Antony.
It ripens towards it. Strike the vessels, ho!
Here is to Cæsar!
Cœsar.
I could well forbear 't.
It's monstrous labour, when I wash my brain,
And it grows fouler.
Antony.
Be a child o' the time.
Cœsar.
Possess it, I'll make answer:
But I had rather fast from all four days
Than drink so much in one.
Enobarbus.
Ha, my brave emperour! [To Antony.
Shall we dance now the Egyptian Bacchanals,
And celebrate our drink?
Pompey.
Let's ha't, good soldier.
Antony.
Come, let's all take hands,
Till that the conquering wine hath steep'd our sense
In soft and delicate Lethe.
Enobarbus.
All take hands. (II.vii.87-114)
Menas.
For this, Ile never follow thy paul'd Fortunes more,
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
And it grow[s] fouler.
Anthony.
Be a Child o'th' time.
Cœsar.
Possesse it, Ile make answer:
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
And celebrate our drinke?
Pompey.
Let's ha't good Souldier.
Anthony.
Come, let's all take hands . . . .
In contrast, even though the metrical options permit either arrangement so that a short beginning line is not obligatory, some situations might be thought to call for a venturesome editor to suppress the odds that so strongly favor the completion of a divided verse by the opening part-line of a speech. Required (not imaginary) stage-business involving the use of properties that calls for a real pause while action develops may lead Shakespeare to begin a speech with a short line, as in the following example, where there is no option to the arrangement:
Madam, please you peruse this Letter;
Pardon me (Madam) I have unadvis'd
Deliver'd you a paper that I should not (TGV 1940-42).
Where is that ring? boy?
Julia.
Heere 'tis: this is it.
Proteus.
How? let me see.
Why this is the ring I gave to Julia (TGV 2214-17).
When such technical matters affect the arrangement, an editor might feel free to adjust the indention, in case of metrical ambiguity, to what are demonstrably Shakespearean patterns. With just the same situation, except that it involves the less compelling pattern of a change of address, the Globe and editors opt for the conservative position in As You Like It, 2313-17:
There is more in it; Cosen Ganimed.
Oliver.
Looke, he recovers.
Rosalind.
I would I were at home.
Celia.
Wee'll lead you thither:
I pray you will you take him by the arme.
Traditional arrangements (which produce an excessive number of unpatterned short opening lines) are likely to show serious inconsistencies when the separate short opening verse might be created more for rhetorical reasons than to mark a structural pause such as the issue of commands at exits, a marked change of address, or the intervention of stage-business. Tradition may sentimentally support the emphatic short line in Antony's farewell speech, and there is a possible change of address for a moment to encourage such arrangement despite the metrical option that would conservatively suggest that 'I am dying' should be linked with 'a heavy sight.'
Thus would I weare them out.
All.
A heavy sight.
Anthony.
I am dying Egypt, dying.[15]
Menenius.
Nay I heare nothing:
His Mother and his wife, heare nothing from him. (Cor. 2912-13)
[Globe to Riverside]
Menenius.
Nay, I heare nothing: his mother and his wife
Hear nothing from him. (IV.vi.18-19)[16]
. . . He said, 'twas folly
And still to nose th'offence.
Menenius.
For one poore graine or two?
I am one of those: his Mother, Wife, his Childe (Cor. 3179-83);
[Globe to Riverside]
And still to nose the offence.
Menenius.
For one poor grain or two! (V.i.28)
And be false with them.
Iachimo.
Heere are Letters for you.
Posthumus.
Their tenure good I trust.
Iachimo.
'Tis very like.
Posthumus.
Was Caius Lucius in the Britaine Court,
When you were there?
Iachimo.
He was expected then,
But not approach'd.
Posthumus.
All is well yet,
Sparkles this Stone as it was wont, or is't not
Too dull for your good wearing? (Cymb. 1183-93)
[Globe to Riverside]
Posthumus.
Was Caius Lucius in the Britain court
When you were there?
Iachimo.
He was expected then,
But not approach'd.
Posthumus.
All is well yet. (II.iv.35-39).
Hoists Sailes, and flyes.
Enobarbus.
That I beheld:
Mine eyes did sicken at the sight, and could not (Ant. 1993-96).
When very special reasons for a separate short opening line are wanting, however, an editor will play the odds by following the common pattern of a short ending line followed by a divided pentameter composed in its first half of a brief separate speech and in its second half either of another brief separate speech or else the opening part line of a longer speech. The following illustration, from Cymbeline, where no options are present, shows that rhetorical pauses alone are far from enough to enforce short emphatic separate lines.
That I kisse aught but he.
Pisanio.
'Twill not be lost.
Imogen.
I hope so: go and search.
Cloten.
You have abus'd me:
His meanest Garment?
Imogen.
I, I said so Sir,
If you will make't an Action, call witnesse to't.
Cloten.
I will enforme your Father.
Imogen.
Your Mother too:
She's my good Lady; and will concieve, I hope
But the worst of me. So I leave you[] Sir,
To'th' worst of discontent. Exit.
Cloten.
Ile be reveng'd:
His mean'st Garment? Well. Exit. (1127-41)
When editors attempt to decide between such options on impressionistic grounds, inconsistency is inevitable. For example, in the following illustration from Othello
Most reverend Signior, do you know my voice?
Brabantio.
Not I: what are you?
Rodorigo.
My name is Rodorigo.
Brabantio.
The worsser welcome:
I have charg'd thee not to haunt about my doores (Oth. 102-106)
Othello.
Did he confesse it?
Iago.
Good Sir, be a man:
Thinke every bearded fellow that's but yoak'd (2444-47);
To love the Moore?
Rodorigo.
I would not follow him then.
Iago.
O Sir content you.
I follow him, to serve my turne upon him. (43-46)
I would not follow him then.
Iago.
O Sir content you.
Envenoms him that beares it?
[Orlando.] Why, what's the matter?
Adam.
O unhappie youth,
Come not within these doores: within this roofe (717-721).
A problem in division may arise when two part-lines that seem as if they should be linked do not produce a regular pentameter when joined, either because of a deficiency or else a surplus of syllables or of stresses. Deficiency is the more common pattern: it occurs frequently enough, in fact, to suggest with some force that Shakespeare's intention in certain specific patterns was nevertheless to link the two part-lines and not
Proceed, proceed: wee'l begin these rights,
As we do trust, they'l end in true delights (AYL 2774-75)
That croakes the fatall entrance of Duncan
Under my Battlements. Come you Spirits (Mac. 390-391).
Prospero.
Fairely spoke;
Sit then, and talke with her, she is thine owne (Temp. 1684-86);
Then in my thought it lies.
Diana.
Good my Lord,
Aske him about his oath, if hee do's thinke (AWW 2905-7)
The thankings of a King.
Posthumus.
I am Sir
The Souldier that did company these three (Cymb. 3730-32);
You did mistake.
Leonates.
No: if I mistake
In those Foundations which I build upon (WT 705-707);
Be strew'd before your feete.
Anthony.
Let us go.
Come: Our separation so abides and flies (Ant. 422-424).
Let us go.
Come:
Our separation so abides and flies . . . .
A second kind of metrically deficient line is more troublesome. The normal complement of five stresses is not found in this variety: instead, the verse contains only four stresses although arranged in a significant syllabic pattern that distinguishes the line from a normal tetrameter. In this form of divided line, the caesura follows a weak or unstressed syllable. One can think of this as a line with a lyric caesura in which the caesura substitutes for the immediately following stressed syllable. The pattern exhibits what Schipper calls the suppression of the arsis.
And let them grapple: The blood more stirres
To rowze a Lyon, then to start a Hare (1H4 520-522);
Prince.
For Wormes, brave Percy. Farewell great heart (1H4 3052);
[divided]
Laugh at his Challenge.
Mecenas.
Cœsar must thinke,
When one so great begins to rage, hee's hunted (Ant. 2396-98).
Despite examples such as these from Shakespeare's full pentameter verse, an editor might still feel uneasy about attempting to link two
The moone shines bright. In such a night as this, . . .
Where Cressed lay that night.
Jessica.
In such a night
Did Thisbie fearefully ore-trip the dewe,
And saw the Lyons shadow ere himselfe,
And ranne dismayed away.
Lorenzo.
In such a night
Stood Dido with a Willow in her hand
Upon the wilde sea bankes, and waft her Love
To come againe to Carthage.
Jessica.
In such a night
Medea gathered the inchanted hearbs
That did renew old Eson.
Lorenzo.
In such a night
Did Jessica steale from the wealthy Jewe,
And with an Unthrift Love did runne from Venice,
As farre as Belmont.
Jessica.
In such a night
Did young Lorenzo sweare he lov'd her well,
Stealing her soule with many vowes of faith,
And nere a true one.
Lorenzo.
In such a night
Did pretty Jessica (like a little shrow)
Slander her Love, and he forgave it her. (MV 2404, 2410-32)
The caesural elision of an unstressed or even a stressed syllable is of course not confined to dividing the closing and opening lines of two speeches but also affects the linking of short single lines that might otherwise be viewed as independent. An example of each may be drawn from Cymbeline:
Imogen.
Doo't, and to bed then.
Ile wake mine eye-balles first.
Imogen.
Wherefore then
Didd'st undertake it? Why hast thou abus'd (1775-79);
Dispayring, dyed.
Cymbeline.
Heard you all this, her Women?
Ladies.
We did, so please your Highnesse.
Cymbeline.
Mine eyes
Were not in fault, for she was beautifull (3321-25).
That you are welcome?
Proteus.
That you are worthlesse. (TGV 765-766)
Nevertheless, restraint is needed when an editor chooses to reline acceptable verse in order to produce these special lines. For example, in Two Gentlemen the Folio prints TLN 1891-97 as follows:
It seemes you lov'd not her, not leave her token:
She is dead belike?
Proteus.
Not so: I thinke she lives.
Julia.
Alas.
Proteus.
Why do'st thou cry alas?
Julia.
I cannot choose but pitty her.
Proteus.
Wherefore should'st thou pitty her?
Alas!
Proteus.
Why dost thou cry 'alas'?
Julia.
I cannot choose
But pity her.
Proteus.
Wherefore shouldst thou pity her?[21]
From whom?
Julia.
From my Master, Sir Protheus, Madam.
Silvia.
Oh: he sends you for a Picture?
Julia.
I, Madam.
Silvia.
Ursula, bring my Picture there,
Goe, give your Master this: tell him from me (TGV 1932-37).
The Globe, usually followed by modern editors, has something of a tendency to distrust the common short ending lines to speeches and to reline in order to link these, particularly if thereby a short independent line can be brought within the system of divided verse. For example, the Folio correctly prints Coriolanus 2930-34 as
Selfe-loving.
Sicinius.
And affecting one sole Throne, without assistance[.]
Menenius.
I thinke not so.
Sicinius.
We should by this, to all our Lamentation
Sicinius.
And affecting one sole throne,
Without assistance.
Menenius.
I think not so.
It not concern'd me.
Anthony.
My being in Egypt Cœsar, what was't to you?
Cœsar.
No more then my reciding heere at Rome . . . .
Antony.
My being in Egypt, Cæsar,
What was't to you?
Cœsar.
Doubt not sir, I knew it for my Bond. Exeunt. (522)
Cœsar.
Doubt not, sir;
I knew it for my bond. Exeunt.
Anthony.
Let us Lepidus not lacke your companie.
Lepidus.
Noble Anthony, not sickenesse should detaine me.
Flourish. Exit omnes. (876-880)
Antony.
Let us, Lepidus,
Not lack your company.
Lepidus.
Noble Antony,
Not sickness should detain me. Flourish. Exeunt.
Two particular problems next occur which, since they may prove to be insoluble, require mention but not extended discussion. The first comes in a situation where, say, a speech ends with a short line and is followed by two separate short-line speeches but where the meter would permit the first of the two short speeches to be linked either with the closing line of the preceding speech or with the second short line. In either case a short line remains. The problem is to decide if any pattern may be discerned as to whether Shakespeare would ordinarily have had any preference for the second short speech to be the closing half of a divided verse or else for it to be a separate short-line speech between pentameters, the preceding pentameter acting as the divided verse.
Pending a more complete analysis one may suggest that consistently useful patterns do not seem to exist. One possibility would be to inquire whether in a divided line Shakespeare more often preferred three stresses than two stresses before the break. What too few examples for statistical certainty reveal is something of a stand-off. If in Julius Cœsar I.iii, for instance, we count the position of the caesura in undivided full pentameters (corresponding to the break in a divided line), we find about 58 lines with a three-stress first half as against about 87 with a two-stress first half. In Measure for Measure II.iv the proportion is relatively balanced at about 75 each; in Cymbeline I.i there are about 22 three-stress versus 29 two-stress first halves before the caesura (although in this same scene in the divided verses the proportion is 6 and 3 with one case ambiguous). If, instead, we count the number of unlinked short ending and beginning lines as bearing more closely on the problem, we find that in Julius Cœsar as a whole we have about 20 three-stress unlinked closing lines as against only 6 two-stress; in Measure for Measure about 19 three-stress versus about 10 two-stress. For short unlinked beginning lines (which might be taken to have a general correspondence with the second half of a verse) Julius Cœsar shows perhaps only 1 of three stresses versus 4 of two stresses; Measure for Measure about 8 (some doubtful) three-stress beginning lines but only 2 two-stress.
On the other hand, it may seem that statistics for divided pentameters where no option exists should be the most trustworthy. In this situation in Julius Cœsar one may find about 45 divided verses with a three-stress first half but 60 with a two-stress. On the contrary, Measure for Measure shows about 80 linked lines with three stresses in the first half as against about 40 with two stresses in the first half. Smaller samplings as in All's Well III.iii reveal perhaps 4 linked lines with three stresses in the first half versus 5 with two stresses; Coriolanus I.ii has 5 three-stress first halves and 2 two-stress, III.i has approximately 32 opening
What these partial figures seem to show is that no exact correlation is necessarily found between the point of division of a full pentameter line and the two halves of a linked one. Julius Cœsar, it is true, in I.iii has a preponderance of full verses with a two-stress first half and also a preponderance in the play as a whole of two-stress first halves in linked lines. (In I.iii there are 2 linked verses with a three-stress first part as against 1 with a two-stress.) Also, the statistics for short unlinked closing lines agree in a majority of two-stress verses. If II.iv is typical of Measure for Measure, its relatively balanced count for three- and two-stress openings of full pentameters does not agree with its strong predilection for three-stress short separate ending lines and for three-stress first halves of a divided verse. On the whole, then, the more pertinent results are about what one would expect: the larger proportion of three-stress short closing lines to speeches agrees in general with the proportion of three-stress closing lines completed by two-stress opening lines of another speech in divided verse. The figures for the length of unlinked opening short lines correlate less exactly with the figures for two-stress second halves of divided verses, although this occasional difference may be due to the smaller number of short beginning lines upsetting the statistical picture. There is at least a possibility, then, that in the later plays Shakespeare increased the number of three-stress first halves in a divided verse over his habit in earlier plays; but fuller statistics are needed.
It follows that if in three short lines an absolute metrical option existed whether to link the first and second or the second and third to form a pentameter by indention, beginning at least as early as Shakespeare's middle period (but with due regard for the characteristics of the play concerned) an editor would be playing the odds, all things being equal, if he opted as a consistent principle to divide ambiguous choices by selecting a three-stress short line for the first half.
The question naturally follows, of course, whether all things are usually equal in such a situation. For instance, occasions arise in which the choice of a three-stress opening half of an ambiguous division could clash with what might be another possibility, a special factor that could have influenced Shakespeare in certain circumstances. Some indication exists that Steevens, followed by the Globe and most editors, was occasionally influenced in his choice of which short lines to link by a belief that some interchange between the characters, whether as intimate as a question-answer or merely a matter of direct address, was a valid justification for linkage as a metrical unit. A difficult question of content thus might enter the picture.
God save the King.
King.
Whence cam'st thou, worthy Thane?
Rosse.
From Fiffe, great King,
Where the Norweyan Banners flowt the Skie (Mac. 71-74).
And leave them honeyless.
Antony.
Not stingless too.
Brutus.
O, yes, and soundless too:
For you have stol'n their buzzing, Antony (JC V.i.34-37).
Not stinglesse too.
Brutus.
O yes, and soundlesse too: (2368-69)
Nay, come your waies.
Enter Hellen.
King.This haste hath wings indeed.
Lafew.
Nay, come your waies,
This is his Majestie, say your minde to him (698-702),
whereas the Globe incorrectly links the King's comment to Lafeu's first address to Helen, a direct relationship, but at the excessive price of creating an anomalous short beginning line:
Nay, come your ways.
King.
This haste hath wings indeed.
Lafeu.
Nay, come your ways (II.i.96-97).
The same situation is found in Antony and Cleopatra which should be lined:
Newes (my good Lord) from Rome.
Anthony.
Grates me, the summe.
Cleopatra.
Nay heare them Anthony.
Fulvia perchance is angry: Or who knowes (27-30);
Take in that Kingdome, and Infranchise that:
Perform't, or else we damme thee.
Anthony.
How, my Love?
Cleopatra.
Perchance? Nay and most like:
You must not stay heere longer, your dismission (33-37).
In both cases, presumably to emphasize direct address, the Globe faultily arranges as
News, my good lord, from Rome.
Antony.
Grates me: the sum.
Cleopatra.
Nay, hear them Antony.
Perform't, or else we damn thee.'
Antony.
How, my love!
Cleopatra.
Perchance! nay, and most like.
Although the two slight pieces of evidence of three-stress first halves of divided lines and direct interchange are present in the Globe arrangement of the above, these weak reeds must bend before the superior force of the evidence against ordinary beginning short lines of speeches, which the Globe so frequently violates. That this question of interchange as a pattern for linking lines is suspect is shown not only by the above but by any number of examples where the meter enforces a linking contrary to such a pattern, as in Macbeth:
Macbeth.
Faile not our Feast.
Banquo.
My Lord, I will not. (1013-15)[23]
Under such conditions, Flatter (p. 88) is perhaps wrong in allowing a fancied pause after the end of Polonius' speech and then a rapid interchange between Claudius and Gertrude to sway him into arguing for a division of
And all we wail for.
King.
Do you think 'tis this?
It may be, very likely.
Polon.
Hath there been such a time—I'd faine know that—(Ham. II.ii.150 ff.)
instead of the conventional
King.
Do you thinke 'tis this?
Queene.
It may be very likely. (1180-82)
The meter here is perfectly regular iambic, which in this play is to be preferred to the anapest required if the King's question begins a verse. In the next passage options are present but the simplicity of linking all part-lines, as is customary here, overweighs any theoretical attempt to divide question and answer:
Rosse.
Will you to Scone?
Macduff.
No Cosin, Ile to Fife.
Rosse.
Well, I will thither. (970-973)
Utterly ambiguous situations where no metrical or patterned hint suggests one or other division of short lines are not very common, a fact in itself perhaps of some significance. In such cases an editor may flip a coin or try to be consistent according to some principle or else inconsistent but according to some suggestion in the scene. An interesting example occurs in Macbeth:
Macbeth.
Ride you this afternoone?
Banquo.
I, my good Lord. (1003-5)
Here editors have differed, as is to be expected. Curiously, the Globe arranges as in the Folio without any linkage. Kittredge and the Pelican divide as
Macbeth.
Ride you this afternoon?
Banquo.
Ay, my good lord.
whereas Alexander, the New Arden, New Penguin, Riverside prefer the question-answer (and the three-stress first half):
Ride you this afternoon?
Banquo.
Ay, my good lord.
In an example from Measure for Measure
Enter Peter.
Mariana.I would Frier Peter
Isabella.
Oh, peace, the Frier is come. (2333-36)
modern editors follow the Globe in linking Mariana's and Isabella's short lines although the New Arden instead, divides a verse, between 'That's bitter to sweet end' and Mariana.
In the nature of the case we lack all evidence as to Shakespeare's intentions, and indeed we cannot be certain that he would always follow the same pattern, if in fact he had one in mind.[24] If consistency is a virtue, an editor has a choice of adhering regularly to one of three options for dealing with these troublesome but fortunately rare problems: (1) he can prefer always to link the short closing line of the preceding speech with the first short line, or, contrariwise, always to link the two independent short lines; (2) he can link variably according to his estimate of the directness or not of an interchange; (3) he can play the odds that in most plays an initial three-stress part-line is more likely to link with a completing two-stress than a two with a three, but he can vary according to the characteristics of the specific play and the evidence of its non-optional linked lines. In the present state of our information either the first or the third seems the best bet: little confidence can be placed in the interchange or question-and-answer assumption;[25] and if such an interchange is not present, logically the first separate short line would then need to be linked willy-nilly with the short closing, a good option also in case the 3-2 division does not work.
As remarked, however, all things may not be equal; and though it seems advisable for an editor to be guided chiefly by one of these three (or two) options, yet some calculated inconsistency may be introduced on what could appear to be evidence of another nature (even though
2
How long is this ago?
1
Some twenty yeares.
2
That a Kings Children should be so convey'd (70-73).
2
How long is this ago?
Sufficient evidence of another sort is exhibited in Coriolanus 354-359, the Folio arranged thus by all editors following the Globe:
All.
The Gods assist you.
Aufidius.
And keepe your Honors safe.
1. Senator.
Farewell.
2. Senator
Farewell.
All.
Farewell. Exeunt omnes.
Brutus.
Manifest Treason.
Sicinius.
This a Consull? No.
Brutus.
The Ediles hoe: Let him be apprehended. (Cor. 1871-74)
The only point in presenting these examples is to suggest that some reason for selecting the two parts of a divided verse from among three equal components is better than none. Among the lack of reasons one may well place editorial tradition transmitted through the Globe, even though in the above three cases the tradition seems to be preferable to the alternatives. When no grounds may exist for a reasoned preference, then an editor may appeal to consistency either in linking the closing short with the first of the two short separate lines, or dividing the verse between the two separate shorts. Or he can split the ticket by surveying the non-optional divided lines in the play in question and then making his decision to correspond with the majority pattern they present, either three and two stresses, or two and three, according to the play.
The second problem concerns the kind and amount of metrical anomaly that an editor can accept in joining two short lines to form a divided verse according to his estimate of Shakespeare's intention. In brief, the problem boils down to the question whether an editor is justified in attempting to link two short lines that, joined, would create either a normal tetrameter or a hexameter. In the preceding discourse the general position has been taken that a divided verse could exhibit the same irregularities as an irregular pentameter within a pentameter speech, especially in the matter of the caesural suppression of either an unaccented or an accented syllable. The question then arises, whether the occasional tetrameters, and the rarer hexameters, that one sometimes finds within pentameter passages justify the linking of two or more short lines to form a corresponding irregularity in a divided verse.
(The Breeze upon her) like a Cow in June,
Hoists Sailes, and flyes.
Enobarbus.
That I beheld:
Indure a further view. (Ant. 1993-97)
[hexameter]
And let goe by the Actor.
Isabella.
Oh just, but severe Law:
I had a brother then; heaven keepe your honour. (MM 787-789)
Where if you bring not Martius, wee'l proceede
In our first way.
Menenius.
Ile bring him to you.
Let me desire your company: he must come (Cor. 2077-80);
[hexameters]
I prythee noble friend, home to thy House,
Leave us to cure this Cause.
Menenius.
For 'tis a Sore upon us,
You cannot Tent your selfe: be gone, 'beseech you. (Cor. 1957-60);
I will be correspondent to command
And doe my spryting, gently.
Prospero.
Doe so: and after two daies
I will discharge thee.
Ariel.
That's my noble Master (Temp. 427-430);
With a most false effect: and I, the truer,
So to be false with her.
Queene.
No further service, Doctor,
Untill I send for thee.
Cornelius.
I humbly take my leave. (Cymb. 540-544);
Payes deere for my offences. [Exit]
Posthumus.
Should we be taking leave
As long a terme as yet we have to live (Cymb. 124-127);
'Twixt sky and ground. Wilt thou heare more my Lord?
Cymbeline.
All that belongs to this.
Iachimo.
That Paragon, thy daughter,
For whom my heart drops blood, and my false spirits (Cymb. 3424-27);
Ile come to you anon.
Murtherers.
We are resolv'd, my Lord.
Macbeth.
Ile call upon you straight: abide within, (Mac. 1144-47)
Y'are goodly things, you Voyces.
Menenius.
You have made good worke
You and your cry. Shal's to the Capitoll?
Ye're goodly things, you voices!
Menenius.
You have made
Good work, you and your cry! Shall's to the Capitol?
Doctor.
Not so sicke my Lord,
As she is troubled with thicke-comming Fancies (Mac. 2257-60).
It seems clear that enough evidence can be gathered to compel an editor to face up to the problem of division posed by anomalous extra-metrical and deficient lines. Without calling Shakespeare up from the grave to testify, one may confess that his intention can often be in considerable doubt. On the one hand, it is legitimate to take it that if he can write internal hexameters (or tetrameters) in pentameter context like
That you might know it would much better please me,
Then to demand what 'tis: your Brother cannot live. (MM 1036-37)
Duke.
'Tis certaine then for Cyprus:
Marcus Luccicos is not he in Towne? (Oth. 373-375);
Then violent'st Contrariety.
Enter Messenger.
Messenger.You are sent for to the Senate:
A fearefull Army, led by Caius Martius (Cor. 2985-88).
On the other hand, several examples (all linked by the Globe) may be observed that under ordinary circumstances should not permit a separate short beginning line. In this category comes Menenius' 'For 'tis a Sore upon us' and Prospero's 'Doe so: and after two daies'. To these can be added:
Is like to lay upon us.
I am glad that my weake words
Have strucke but this much shew of fire from Brutus. (JC 273-276)
This last example, especially, poses a problem, since Kittredge, New Arden, and New Penguin, for example, reline to avoid the hexameter:
Cassius.
I am glad
That my weak words have struck but thus much show
Of fire from Brutus.
This is an attractive emendation, particularly since it not only rids the verse of an extreme irregularity in the opening short line, if unlinked, but also provides a short closing line to the speech before Cæsar's entrance. (The Globe, Alexander, and Riverside, on the contrary, retain the Folio lineation and link the two part-lines as a hexameter.) Relining is also possible in the Tempest 427-431 crux, as in
Prospero.
Doe so: and after two daies I will [i.e., I'll] discharge thee.
Ariel.
That's my noble Master:
What shall I doe? say what? what shall I doe?
Ariel's exclamation followed by what is close to a change of address in his direct question to Prospero makes an acceptable short line to begin his speech, much better than 'Doe so: and after two daies', completing a divided hexameter.[28] Coriolanus 1958-61 might be subject to more drastic relining, though no more so, perhaps, than the frequently accepted relining of Julius Cœsar 273-276.
Menenius.
For 'tis a Sore
Upon us you cannot Tent your selfe:
Be gone, 'beseech you.
Comenius.
Come Sir, along with us.
If the rhetorical tetrameter is objectionable, one could read:
'Beseech you.
Comenius.
Come Sir, along with us.
In this case the divided line with Comenius would suppress the arsis.[29]
Nevertheless, too many of these divided hexameters cannot be removed by relining. In such cases it is a question whether the cure is worse than the disease; that is, does an editor take it that it is better to link two hypermetrical part-lines or to treat them as separate verses at the expense of violating one of Shakespeare's most important verse patterns, the special purpose for the short beginning line of a speech. Something may be said for the view that, at least in these exceptional circumstances, editors have traditionally but not invariably preferred to link two part lines to form a divided hexameter.
The same problem involving the nature of the opening line of a speech occurs when it is preceded not by the short closing line of a speech but by an independent short line which cannot be prose. In the first example the change of address in Cæsar's speech makes it quite ambiguous whether Antony's short line should be treated as an independent verse, and Cæsar's speech should begin with an independent short beginning line, or whether they should be linked at the expense of forming a hexameter.
So to most Noble Cœsar.
Cœsar.
Bid them prepare within:
I am too blame to be thus waited for. (JC 1116-18)
Plainlie conceive I love you.
Isabella.
My brother did love Juliet,
And you tell me that he shall die for't. (MM 1153-55)
On the whole, an editor is playing the odds in such situations when he declines to create hexameters and opts for a series of short lines.
Antickt us all. What needs more words? goodnight.
Good Anthony your hand.
Pompey.
Ile try you on the shore.
Anthony.
And shall Sir, gives your hand.
Oh Anthony, you have my Father house.
But what, we are Friends?
Come downe into the Boate.
Enobarbus.
Take heed you fall not Menas: Ile not on shore,
No to my Cabin: these Drummes,
These Trumpets, Flutes: what (Ant. 1479-88).
Pompey.
I'll try you on the shore.
Antony.
And shall, sir: give's your hand.
Pompey.
O Antony,
You have my father's house,—But, what? we are friends.
Come, down into the boat.
Enobarbus.
Take heed you fall not.
Menas, I'll not on shore.
Menas.
No, to my cabin.
These drums! these trumpets, flutes! what? (IV.vi.133-138).
Ho! says a'. There's my cap.
Menas.
Ho! Noble captain, come. [Exeunt.
Pompey.
Ile try you on the shore.
Anthony.
And shall Sir, gives your hand.
Pompey.
Oh Anthony you have my Father[s] house.
But what, we are Friends? Come[,] downe into the Boate.
Enobarbus.
Take heed you fall not[.] [Exeunt.]
Menas[,] Ile not on shore,
No[,] to my Cabin: these Drummes, these Trumpets, Flutes: what[?]
My body up to shame.
Then[31] must your brother die.
Isabella. And 'twer the cheaper way:
Better it were a brother dide at once . . .
About the first of the next examples there can be only a trifling question, and it is properly linked by the Globe despite the hexameter that is created. The second is only slightly more doubtful, since relining is possible, but the odds favor its authenticity as a hexameter.[32]
Is not this Boy reviv'd from death?
Arviragus.
One Sand another
Not more resembles that sweet Rosie Lad (Cymb. 3392-94);
Antony.
For Brutus sake, I am beholding to you.
4
What does he say of Brutus?
3
He sayes, for Brutus sake
He findes himselfe beholding to us all. (JC 1599-1602).
The final situation involving the division of hypermetrical lines concerns the concluding short line of a speech followed by a single short line. Here there is a much weaker incentive to link the two short lines since the criteria applicable to the short line beginning a speech have no applicability to an independent or single short line. Ordinarily editors are inclined to link such lines if the result is metrically regular but to be somewhat wary (although not wary enough) when anomalies would
This is the penthouse under which Lorenzo
Desired us to make [a] stand.
Salarino.
His houre is almost past. (MV 896-898)
But send me Flavius first.
Peter.
It shall be speeded well. (MM 2316-18)
Your safetie manifested.
Provost.
I am your free dependant. Exit.
Duke.
Quicke, dispatch, and send the head to Angelo[.]
(MM 2172-75)
That changes thus his Manners.
Camillo.
I dare not know (my Lord.) (WT 480-482)
When one surveys the interrelationships between these three categories, certain tentative observations may be made. So far as observed, the separate short lines preceding a speech beginning with a short line offer no evidence in favor of divided tetrameters although some occasional evidence is found in favor of divided hexameters. The evidence of a short line ending a speech followed by another beginning the next speech, insofar as one can trust the four examples observed, is not in favor of editorial arrangement as linked verses. Coriolanus 1191-92 and 2079-80 show a change of address, perhaps the strongest evidence normally found in favor of the independence of a short line beginning a speech. Antony and Cleopatra 1994-95 and Measure for Measure 788-789 both have a marked rhetorical pause, reinforced in the example from Measure for Measure by what is very close to a change of address from Isabella's exclamation made largely to herself then shifting to a farewell to Angelo. Until equally pertinent evidence to the contrary is
'Tis he, 'tis he: O he is grown most kind of late:
Haile Sir.
Menenius.
Haile to you both.
Sicinius.
Your Coriolanus is not much mist, but with his [prose, as printed, completes speech].
'Tis he, 'tis he: O, he is grown most kind of late.
Both Tribunes. Hail, sir!
Menenius.
Hail to you both!
Sicinius.
Your Coriolanus
Is not much miss'd, but with his friends:
'Tis he, 'tis he! O, he is grown most kind
Of late.—Hail, sir!
Menenius.
Hail to you both!
Sicinius.
Your Coriolanus is not much miss'd.
'Tis he, 'tis he:
O he is grown most kind of late: Haile Sir.
Menenius.
Haile to you both.
Sicinius.
Your Coriolanus is not much mist . . . .
If it is possible in the present state of our knowledge to be fairly forthright in barring divided tetrameters (for if one accepts tetrameters, why not divided trimeters and even dimeters?), some relaxation seems
What one comes up with is the view that although some must be accepted, many of the divided hexameters that editors customarily adopt and some that, inconsistently, they do not adopt, are better off as separate lines whenever the observed pattern justifying a short beginning line can reasonably be applied, this whether the preceding short line is the closing line of a speech or a separate single line. If it is logical for the Globe and later editors to treat 'My brother did love Juliet' (MM 1154) and ''Tis certaine then for Cyprus' (Oth. 374) as separate verse lines, it is even more logical to remove the editorial linkage of cases like 'Bid them prepare within' (JC 1117). Such procedures will solve a number of problems and leave in a minority, perhaps, the situations where the treatment of a short run-on or other non-special-purpose beginning line as a verse unit is inapplicable. In some cases plausible although not demonstrably correct relineation may remove the problem, as in The Tempest 427-430 and possibly in Julius Cœsar 273-276. Yet Cymbeline 3392-94 illustrates a second category in which an editor would be almost certainly wrong were he to reline, although the below is just faintly possible:
Is not this Boy reviv'd from death?
Arviragus.
One Sand another not more resembles that
Sweet Rosie Lad: who dyed, and was Fidele:
What thinke you?
Guiderius.
The same dead thing alive.
As for short single lines that would create a tetrameter or hexameter if linked to the short closing line of a preceding speech, or to another short single line, no possibility exists for determining their authenticity. It is therefore conservative to ignore anomalous linkings and to treat extra-metrical single lines as separate verses in arrangement and in line numbering.
Betwixt your Eyes, and Night?
Cassius.
Shall I entreat a word? (JC 728-730)
I, and my Sword, will earne our Chronicle,
There's hope in't yet.
Cleopatra.
That's my brave Lord. (Ant. 2359-61)
Anthony.
Well, what worst. (Ant. 180-181)
Some erratic and inconsistent arrangements of part-lines appear in modern editors as a heritage of the Globe's dislike of independent short lines in pentameter context. That these short lines are legitimate and for a verse-speaker are to be considered as a separate line of verse is incontestable:
Set on, and leave no Ceremony out.
Soothsayer. Cœsar.
Cœsar.
Ha? Who calles? (JC 100-102);
Cœsar. Calphurnia.
Caska.
Peace ho, Cœsar speakes.
Cœsar.
Calphurnia.
Calphurnia.
Heere my Lord. (JC 87-90);
Cassius.
Will you go see the order of the course?
Brutus.
Not I.
Cassius.
I pray you do. (JC 116-117);
Hah? what is that?
Brutus.
It will be dangerous to goe on—No further.
Coriolanus.
What makes this change?
Menenius.
The matter?
Cominius.
Hath he not pass'd the Noble, and the Common?
(Cor. 1705-9).
Silvia.
This evening comming.
Eglamour.
Where shall I meete you?
Silvia.
At Frier Patrickes Cell,
Where I intend holy Confession. (TGV 1810-14)
Silvia.
This evening coming.
Eglamour.
Where shall I meet you?
Silvia.
At Friar Patrick's cell.
From whom?
Julia.
From my Master, Sir Protheus, Madam.
Silvia.
Oh: he sends you for a Picture?
Julia.
I, Madam. (1932-35),
No, I will not; for it boots thee not.
Protheus.
What? (31-32)
No, I will not, for it boots thee not.
Proteus.
What?
Protheus.
Not so: I thinke she lives.
Julia.
Alas. (1892-93)
Why do'st thou cry alas?
Julia.
I cannot choose but pitty her.
Protheus.
Wherefore should'st thou pitty her? (1895-97)
Why dost thou cry 'alas'?
Julia.
I cannot choose
But pity her.
Proteus.
Wherefore shouldst thou pity her?
An equally common type of editorial interference comes in Coriolanus:
Have you inform'd them sithence?
Brutus.
How? I informe them?
Cominius.
You are like to doe such businesse.
Brutus.
Not unlike each way to better yours.
Coriolanus.
Why then should I be Consull? by yond Clouds (1732-36).
You are like to do such business.
Brutus.
Not unlike,
Each way, to better yours.
Countesse.
This was your motive for Paris, was it, speake? (563-564)
Countess.
This was your motive
For Paris, was it? speak.
It not concern'd me.
Anthony.
My being in Egypt Cœsar, what was't to you?
Cœsar.
No more then my reciding heere at Rome (723-726)
Antony.
My being in Egypt, Cæsar,
What was't to you?
What is your pleasure Madam?
Countesse.
You know Hellen I am a mother to you. (460-461)
What is your pleasure madam?
Countess.
You know, Helen,
I am a mother to you.
To let me be partaker.
Cœsar.
Doubt not sir, I knew it for my Bond. Exeunt. (Ant. 520-522);
And do invite you to my Sisters view,
Whether straight Ile lead you.
Anthony.
Let us Lepidus not lacke your companie.
Lepidus.
Noble Anthony, not sickenesse should detaine me.
Flourish. Exit omnes. (Ant. 875-880).
Antony.
Let us, Lepidus,
Not lack your company.
Lepidus.
Noble Antony,
Not sickness should detain me.
To let me be partaker.
Cœsar.
Doubt not, sir;
I knew it for my bond.
The case is altered, of course, when adjustment of division must be made in extremely anomalous Folio arrangement.
Miranda.
'Tis a villaine Sir, I doe not love to looke on.
Propspero.
But as 'tis
We cannot misse him: he do's make our fire (Temp. 444-447).
Miranda.
'Tis a villaine Sir,
I doe not love to looke on.
Prospero.
But as 'tis
Other considerations, such as desirable double linkage, may dictate the division of a full Folio pentameter. A good example comes in Macbeth:
Macbeth.
Both of you know Banquo was your Enemie.
Murtherers.
True, my Lord.
Macbeth.
So is he mine: and in such bloody distance (1116-19)
Macbeth.
Both of you
Know Banquo was your enemy.
Both Murderers.
True, my lord.
The Globe's inconsistency in dividing verses is a serious fault.
Beneath the visiting Moone.
Charmion.
Oh quietnesse, Lady.
Iras.
She's dead too, our Soveraigne.
Charmion.
Lady.
Iras.
Madam.
Charmion.
Oh Madam, Madam, Madam.
Iras.
Royall Egypt: Empresse.
Charmion.
Peace, peace, Iras. (Ant. 3079-87)
Charmion.
O, quietness, lady!
Iras.
She is dead too, our sovereign.
Charmion.
Lady!
Iras.
Madam!
Charmion.
O madam, madam, madam!
Iras.
Royal Egypt,
Empress.
Charmion.
Peace, peace, Iras!
Charmion.
Oh quietnesse, Lady.
Iras.
She's dead too, our Soveraigne.
Charmion.
Lady.
Iras.
Madam.
Charmion.
Oh Madam, Madam, Madam.
Iras.
Royall Egypt: Empresse.
Charmion.
Peace, peace, Iras.
On the other hand, in Measure for Measure the Globe allows a short ending line to stand that is eminently linkable, as
And good supporters are you.
Enter Peter and Isabella.
Peter.Now is your time[:]
Speake loud, and kneele before him (2365-69)
and instead combines 2368-69 into a single pentameter. This is an eccentric rearrangement and cannot be urged even by the present-day bibliographical knowledge that 2368-69 being too long for the measure could have been divided by the compositor. The Folio arrangement by which a pentameter single speech is divided to link its first half with the short closing line of the preceding speech although in its second half leaving an unlinked short line is so common that emendation to restore the undivided pentameter is unnecessary and even intrusive.[40]
A final problem is at present so complex and relatively unanalyzed as to prevent more than cursory mention. As would be expected, editors
Not all decisions are so relatively simple, as evidence the varied editorial treatment given Lucio's speeches in Measure for Measure, I.ii. Shakespeare's general tendency seems to be either to be consistent in treating a prose speaker, like Casca in JC I.ii, or else to set off in blocks the shift of a character from verse to prose (or the other way round) as with Oliver in As You Like It when, joined by Rosalind as Ganymede, he switches at the end of IV.iii.166ff. (2321). Or in Measure for Measure V.i when Lucio opens as a verse speaker (l. 75, TLN 2435), but shifts to prose (l. 179, TLN 2552) and, pace editors, remains a prose speaker for the rest of the scene. In this stretch of Lucio's prose, editors, nevertheless, have him divide a line with the Duke (l. 214, TLN 2587). He speaks what could be an acceptable pentameter in line 306 (2683). For the rest, prose prevails, and it is certain that in this block system the attempt to introduce a part-line of verse at V.i.214 is ill-advised and a distortion.
When one reverts to I.ii the main question arises whether Lucio is a prose speaker throughout or else a verse speaker at random. The evidence is slight for Lucio as a verse speaker, scarcely more than in V.i, in fact. He opens the scene in prose and so continues until his re-entrance at l.128 (TLN 215) when he addresses Claudio with a perfect pentameter: 'Why how now Claudio? whence comes this restraint.' Yet his next speech in response to Claudio's verse is in prose and then follow (228-231) four short question-and-answer lines between the two that do not link (except when forced to by the New Arden editor alone), until one comes to the Folio mislining at ii.146-148 (233-236):
One word, good friend:
Lucio, a word with you.
Lucio.
A hundred:
If they'll doe you any good: Is Lechery so look'd after?
One word, good friend. Lucio, a word with you.
Lucio.
A hundred, if they'll do you any good.
Is lechery so look'd after?
Within two hours.
Claudio.
Come, officer, away!
I thank you, good friend Lucio.
Lucio.
Within two hours.
The evidence for Lucio as a mixed prose and verse speaker in this scene is scarcely better than that for Casca in Julius Cœsar I.ii, where there is also what could pass for an opening pentameter by Casca and some short lines that could link. Until the whole question of verse lining is resurveyed with different texts from our sophisticated modern editions, and the question of Shakespeare's use of characters as random prose and verse speakers instead of with ordered, or blocked variation, is settled, editors may be suspicious of counting as verse such possibly fortuitous hits as 'With child, perhaps?' and the like. At the most, it would seem, Lucio in this scene might be allowed an opening pentameter on his re-entrance but thereafter be confined to prose exclusively, including such fortuitous hits as 'With child, perhaps?' and the like. Whatever the results of further investigation, it may seem that conventional editorial arrangement in Shakespearean mixed scenes of verse and prose needs to be more finely tuned since it is probable that too many prose speakers have been assigned random part-lines of verse.
Notes
As will be seen, the identification and authentication of verse lines go far beyond the rearrangement of false verse as prose or of text set as prose into metrically lined verse. Nor is the problem of the verse more than distantly related to the irregular and impossible lines created by compositors who failed to identify the short line beginning a speech and so included it as part of the first pentameter with consequent mislining of what follows; nor to the compositorial breaking of a line which would otherwise overflow the measure or else to the trick of making two lines not for this reason but to stretch out material to fill a surplus of space left by faulty casting-off of copy, or, at the opposite, of reducing the number of lines of verse by irregularly running them together in order to conserve space.
I am not competent to address the question whether actors' delivery is affected by visual verse arrangement. Since memorization of a part is done from printed texts, my guess is that the visual connections or disconnections could conceivably affect delivery, but whether this would be retained after complete familiarity with the part is an open question, except so far as the rhetorical effects of the verse itself would certainly hold.
I do not mean verbal emendation, except as a minor spin-off, but instead an investigation aimed directly at assessing the validity of the traditional metrical arrangement of Shakespeare's short verses on the basis of established evidence to replace a tradition that on occasion is mistaken, followed by the emendation of the division of verse lines as a result of fresh information about Shakespeare's (and the time's) characteristics. To give the devil his due, Richard Flatter opened the subject in the early chapters of Shakespeare's Producing Hand (1948) but with such eccentric results owing to his prepossessions that his study, and certainly his conclusions, are substantially worthless.
At present if one wants to use an act-scene-line reference system instead of the through-line numbering (TLN), for uniformity one is forced into the only common norm, the old-fashioned Globe edition which is seriously deficient for the purpose because of its inconsistent relineation of acceptable verse as well as its curious views about verse-division. Scholars badly need a new authoritative edition to replace the Globe as the source of a superior act-scene-line reference; but this edition (would it could be in old spelling) cannot be contemplated until—among other matters—questions of divided lines are decided in a more authoritative manner than at present.
All statistics about short lines can be only approximate because of the various undecided cases whether they are independent or linked and whether verse has been properly relined to produce them.
It is a matter of opinion whether the two parts of Tamburlaine contain a single such divided line. The texts of The Massacre at Paris and Faustus have not come down to us in sufficiently trustworthy form to the original to be relied on statistically.
Metrists have not fully faced up to the problem whether such examples as this, or of stronger expletives or addresses, should be included in the line albeit hypermetrically, or else given individual-line status as in the Folio here and in WT 443 but not Cor. 1777. There is something to be said for inclusion when the evidence of other dramatists is heeded, with some reference to Marlowe. Even such short addresses as 'My Lord' may also be considered for inclusion. 1 Henry IV needs especially close study in this respect.
In theory one could reline Jaques's opening to provide an internal short line:
Taxe any private party:
For instance, the Globe lines the Folio, misprinted as prose, at II.vi.62-69:
Antony.
That will I Pompey.
Pompey.
No, Antony, take the lot: but first
Or last your fine Egyptian cookery
Shall have the fame. I have heard that Julius Cæsar
Grew fat with feasting there.
Antony.
You have heard much.
Pompey.
I have fair meanings, sir.
Antony.
And fair words to them.
Pompey.
Then so much have I heard:
And I have heard, Apollodorus carried----
No Antony, take the lot: but first or last,
Your fine Egyptian cookery shall have
The fame. I have heard that Julius Cæsar
Grew fat with fasting there.
No, Antony, take the lot:
But, first or last, your fine Egyptian cookery
Shall have the fame. I have heard that Julius Cæsar
Grew fat with feasting there.
Antony.
That will I Pompey.
Pompey.
No Anthony take the lot:
But first or last, your fine Egyptian cookerie
Shall have the fame, I have heard that Julius Cœsar,
Grew fat with feasting there.
Anthony.
You have heard much.
Pompey.
I have faire meaning Sir
Anthony.
And faire words to them.
Pompey.
Then so much have I heard (Ant. 1252-60).
Were it not for a truly necessary piece of stage-business,
Barnardo.
Last night of all,
When yond same Starre that's Westward from the Pole (Ham. 45-47)
This may not be an authentic case. The Folio lines:
From Scicion how the newes? Speake there.
1. Messenger.
The man from Scicion,
Is there such an one?
2. Messenger.
He stayes upon your will.
Anthony.
Let him appeare: . . .
As in ''Tis certaine then for Cyprus' (Oth. 374) and 'You are sent for to the Senate' (Cor. 2987), as cited above.
Just possibly the Globe so arranged this divided verse separately because Pompey's answer to Enorbarbus seemed to join the lines more pertinently than Antony's to Pompey. If so, this is fallacious reasoning, for direct exchange need have nothing to do with whether part-lines link or not.
We cannot tell whether the Globe lined this passage by chance or under the impression that Oliver's 'Look, he recovers' was prose and hence unlinkable. Before this passage Oliver speaks verse but subsequently, according to the Globe, he then speaks prose. If this were the reason, it is erroneous. The Folio lines Oliver's next address to Rosalind (after Celia's invitation for him to take Ganymede by the arm) as verse:
Be of good cheere youth: you a man?
You lacke a mans heart.
Rosalind.
I doe so I confesse it:
Ah, sirra . . . (2318-20).
That will I: for I must beare answere backe
How you excuse my brother, Rosalind.
This famous passage, and its arrangement, may well represent merely another example of the Globe's strong (and unwarranted) propensity for linking the closing line of a speech with a succeeding short one when an option exists. Instead, the odds favor the closing short as a complete verse.
'His Mother and his wife,' can just be fitted into the Folio measure with 2912; hence no bibliographical evidence supports viewing the opening short line as a compositorial device. There is a sufficient even though a not very marked break.
Not only the frequency suggests this relationship in a division of a pentameter but also the positions. The short-line ending of one speech followed by the unlinked short-line beginning of the next is uncommon in Shakespeare although a few legitimate examples have been cited above that exhibit special characteristics justifying their existence.
How far contractions can be counted on to be authoritative (especially in a play like Measure for Measure where the scribe Ralph Crane intervenes between the holograph and the printing shop) is sometimes moot. For example:
Enter Angelo.
Angelo.Now, what's the matter Provost? (MM 739-741)
There shall be order for't.
Enter Lucio and Isabella.
Provost.'Save your Honour. (766-768)
The warrant's for your selfe: take heede to't
Since I saw you last,
Ther's a change upon you.
Pompey.
Well, I know not,
What counts harsh Fo[r]tune cast's upon my face . . . .
That is, metrically this divided line may be read either as one with a double feminine ending and the caesura substituting for an unstressed syllable, or else with an epic caesura dividing an anapest (if this is possible); yet in either case a limping effect is produced when 'her' is both unstressed and stressed in the same phrase within the same line. The stress is on the same words if the lines are independent.
If one had any reason to defend the Globe lining one could point out (what would have been hidden from the Globe editors) that the page is very tightly set, an indication of problems with cast-off copy, and that the compositor could have saved a line by joining the two halves of Antony's speech. But a possibility is not a probability, of course. That this could have occurred does not prove that it did.
In another passage from Macbeth the meter seems to indicate the following division
Macbeth.
Good repose the while.
Banquo.
Thankes Sir: the like to you. (608-610)
It would be ridiculous to suggest that Shakespeare wrote these short lines, or linked them in his mind, according to any predetermined pattern. But changing habits within the flow of blank verse, as well as various quite unassessable rhetorical or other considerations might dictate to him in any specific case one sense of linking as against another. Except for some matters such as the general avoidance of an unlinked short opening line to a speech and sometimes a special treatment of exit lines, Shakespeare's sense of the verse-division might well differ according to no after-the-event discernible pattern, although it is true that certain divisions were more habitual with him than others. Unfortunately, such observable tendencies do not seem to be of a specific enough nature to solve the problem of an utterly ambiguous situation such as Macbeth 1003-5 or MM 2333-36 above, where the basic question is whether to link the first short independent line with the short preceding ending or the second short separate line. We can only assume that in such cases at the moment of writing Shakespeare had an opinion which lines he thought went together. At least the evidence of Ben Jonson's plays indicates that linking was entirely conscious, for Jonson would insist on printing the two halves of a divided verse on the same line, a practice in which he was followed by Massinger.
How little what might be called the sense or content of the lines may affect the division is seen in such a typical case as Macbeth I.iii.127-147 (238-262) in which Macbeth's soliloquy links several times with Banquo's comments, yet neither of them hears the other. See also Mac. 1013-15 above.
Schipper, p. 231, allows the caesura to substitute for a whole foot so that a normal tetrameter may be considered to be a pentameter. This reasoning is difficult to follow once one admits that Shakespeare for a special purpose (usually for an abrupt termination of some line of thought or address) does write internal lines of less than five feet within a pentameter passage. That is, if the verse is regularly iambic so that the caesura comes after the second iamb, the distinction vanishes between a tetrameter and an assumed pentameter with suppression of a foot. If, instead, the caesura suppresses the arsis, the pattern is quite different since the unstressed iambic syllable of a lyric caesura is present in the first half, and only one syllable (the stressed) that follows has been suppressed. Moreover, Schipper's examples are suspect: JC V.iii.32 merely ends a speech with a normal tetrameter and to try to stretch it to a pentameter would be absurd. Mac. I.ii.7 is an illegitimate example since it merely suppresses the arsis and not a whole foot.
Still another arrangement is possible although it cannot be seriously put forward:
You have made good worke[,] you and your cry.
Shal's to the Capitoll?
Cominius.
Oh I, what else? Exeunt both.
Including the speech-prefix, Prospero's full line is too long to have fitted in the measure and needed to be broken by the compositor. Hence the Folio lining can be explained, if necessary. The case for JC 273-276 and its common editorial rearrangement is less bibliographically explicable than Temp. 427-431. The page is loosely set and any division would have been possible. On the other hand, 'That my weake words have strucke but thus much shew' is too long for the measure. Not every Folio mislining is bibliographically (or rationally) explicable, of course. If JC requires relining here, an editor may appeal to the common compositorial error of running in extra words after a short line, perhaps owing to some problems with the manuscript inscription. But the case for relining, though good is far from certain. Everything really rests on the serious difficulty of the divided hexameter in a situation in which the resulting short opening line should not represent a verse.
A difficulty here is that there is no problem with the measure, as in Prospero's line, to justify rearrangement. However, much of the mislineation in Coriolanus, which constitutes a serious editorial problem, seems to have been caused by some other factor than the width of the measure.
That is, unless 'What?' is made into a short, sharp, single line. For a similar case, see TGV 31-32, below, lined by modern editors as a divided verse.
The catchword is 'Ang. That', more likely a misreading than a sign that the continued text somehow differed from that in the manuscript as a reason for the lineation problem.
The page (sig. 2l1) is loosely set. Moreover, the measure would have held 'For Brutus sake he findes himselfe beholding' if it had been present in the manuscript (thus making of the linked line a pentameter with suppression of the arsis). In short, no physical reason exists why the compositor should not have set the arrangement that he saw in his copy.
Hexameters create a special problem because so many apparent ones may in effect be viewed as loose pentameters, as widely illustrated by E. A. Abbott, A Shakespearian Grammar (1871), §§ 493-499, who believes that true alexandrines are comparatively rare in Shakespeare. (However, many of Abbott's scansions would not be accepted today.) Lines that respond to the contraction of auxiliaries (AYL 1846), articles (Ant. 2272), some prepositions (1H6 1217), and the like (WT 1164-65) (Abbott, § 456), or lines with double feminine endings (§§ 458, 494), present no difficulty of course. But from sufficient examples of less amenable verses it may seem that Shakespeare either wrote a larger number of hexameters (if regularly scanned) than is probable or else that on occasion he was prepared to accept as a poetic foot a stressed syllable preceded by three unstressed syllables. However, even though it may scan strictly as a hexameter, when we have an epic caesura (the pause after one extra weak syllable) followed by an anapest beginning the second half, the line may pass without comment as an intended pentameter (see Mac. 2257-60 above), whether undivided as in 'Let's be Sacrificers, but not Butchers Caius' (JC 799), or else divided. (This suggested scansion may seem superior to one with a caesura preceded by two weak syllables followed by a series of trochees beginning with 'but'.) So also with a normal line but with a double feminine ending (or single with slurring) like 'Our purpose Necessary, and not Envious' (JC 811). Only slightly more troublesome is a line like 'Joyn'd with an enemy proclaim'd, and from his Coffers' (H5 797), since 'enemy' can be elided to a dissyllable or quite naturally slurred as in a sense a Jonsonian apostrophus. (Again, this scansion seems superior to a four-stress first half and a one-stress second half composed of a single foot of three unstressed and one one-stress syllables.) The above are simple examples; but how far we should go in slurring to create a pentameter from a twelve-syllable line that could be an alexandrine if regularly scanned is the really debatable question on which opinions may well differ. One may suggest that the oral slurring (or elision) of 'to be' to the single syllable 't'be' in 'That seeming to be most, which we indeed least are' (Shr. 2733) is superior to creating the anomalous foot of three unstressed and one stressed syllables from 'ing to be'. (Since this line forms a couplet with its predecessor 2732, it ought not to be a hexameter, as Abbott, p. 400, points out; nevertheless, see R2 976-977 for just such a couplet.) But a line like 'And these does she apply, for warnings and portents' (JC 1073) may be more troublesome if Abbott, p. 402. is correct that 'portents' with the stress on the second syllable represents 'the Shakespearian accent'. The choice would seem to be between slurring (or eliding) 'does she' to one syllable or accepting a final foot composed of 'ings and portents' with three unstressed syllables, unless one could slur the 'ings' ending, perhaps uncomfortably. Similarly, "Supposition, all our lives, shall be stucke full of eyes' (1H4 2790) seems to require a foot of three unstressed syllables and a stressed in 'tion, all our lives', and so do lines like 'Do somthing mingle with our yonger brown, yet ha we' (Ant. 2673), and probably 'The rest shall beare the businesse in some other fight' (Cor. 703) whether or not relined to shift the problem to 702. Similarly, no matter how lined, it is difficult without excessive slurring to scan 'Hyperion to a Satyre: so loving to my Mother' (Ham. 324) without such a foot, or 'Coy looks, with hart-sore sighes: one fading moments mirth' (TGV 34). Such occasional Fletcherian looseness in Shakespeare's undivided lines may perhaps encourage an editor to accept more linked verses than he might otherwise wish, when an anomalous short opening line of a speech can thereby be avoided. Whether the odds favor the same flexibility when the linking of single independent lines is in question either with the short concluding line of a preceding speech or with each other is moot. Even in the first category some delicate decisions would be required. For instance, in MM 744-745, 748-749, 751-752, it may be considered good evidence that three successive interchanges, if linked, would need special dispensations of one sort or another, whereas something can be said for the ability of each short beginning line to stand alone according to an acceptable Shakespearean pattern, which I personally believe is the correct lining, despite the linking of the final exchange in 754-755.
The Globe and most editors do not attempt to link any of the lines in these four examples, except for the New Arden which arbitrarily makes a divided trimeter of 'change? | The matter?'
The main reason is that no matter how the line is scanned as a pentameter, different stresses fall on the two occurrences of 'pity her'. For instance, if a line were formed with a lyric caesura after the first foot, the first 'her' would be accented but the second awkwardly stressed. On the other hand, also awkward, if the caesura comes at the end of stressed 'her' as the second iamb, and the caesura substitutes for an unstressed syllable, then 'pity her' is a feminine ending with unstressed 'her'.
Taking only the regular syllabic metrical beat, the line is an acceptable pentameter with lyric caesura and feminine ending. If the stresses are rhetorical, however, the line could be read as a hexameter unless one were to count 'How? I' as a single foot, a spondee. Despite the temptation to regard this passage as consisting of five short independent lines, the linking of 1732-33 might be encouraged by the definite link in preceding 1730-31.
Antony's pentameter can be read as an anapest and four iambs or else as a trochee, dactyl, and three iambs. Lepidus' answering pentameter has the same choice.
To end an exit or a scene with an unlinked short line is a favorite device but by no means a majority usage. In Macbeth, rather curiously if the expedient is Shakespeare's, a concluding couplet may be followed by an unlinked and unrhymed independent short line.
An analogy would be Macbeth 410-413, the divided verse correctly arranged in the Folio:
Macbeth.
My dearest Love,
Duncan comes here to Night.
Lady.
And when goes hence?
| ||