Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 15, 2019

“A Broken Voice”: Iconic Distress in Shakespeare’s Tragedies

David J. Amelang
From the journal Anglia

Abstract

This article explores the change in dynamics between matter and style in Shakespeare’s way of depicting distress on the early modern stage. During his early years as a dramatist, Shakespeare wrote plays filled with violence and death, but language did not lose its composure at the sight of blood and destruction; it kept on marching to the beat of the iambic drum. As his career progressed, however, the language of characters undergoing an overwhelming experience appears to become more permeable to their emotions, and in many cases sentiment takes over and interferes with the character’s ability to speak properly. That is, Shakespeare progressively imbued his depictions of distress with a degree of linguistic iconicity previously unheard of in Elizabethan commercial drama. By focusing on the linguistic properties of three passages of iconic distress – Hamlet’s first soliloquy, Othello’s jealous rant, and King Lear’s dying words – this article analyses the rhetorical adjustments Shakespeare undertook in his effort to raise the level of verisimilitude of emotional speech in his plays.1

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Jonson, Ben. 2012. “Bartholomew Fair”. In: David Bevington, Martin Butler and Ian Donaldson (eds.). The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Ben Jonson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kyd, Thomas. 2013. The Spanish Tragedy. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar

Marlowe, Christopher. 2008. Doctor Faustus: Based on the A Text. London: Methuen. Search in Google Scholar

Marlowe, Christopher. 2008. Tamburlaine: Parts One and Two. London: Methuen. Search in Google Scholar

Puttenham, George. 2004. “The Art of English Poesy”. In: Gavin Alexander (ed.) Sidney’s ‘The Defence of Poesy’ and Selected Renaissance Literary Criticism. London: Penguin. 55–204. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 1995. Titus Andronicus. London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 1995. King Henry V. London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 1997. King Lear. London: Thomson. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 2009. King Richard III. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 2010. The Merchant of Venice. London: Methuen. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 2010. The Winter’s Tale. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 2015. Macbeth. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 2016. Hamlet, Revised Edition. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 2016. Othello, Revised Edition. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William. 2017. Cymbeline. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Alexander, Gavin. 2001. “Sidney’s Interruptions”. Studies in Philology 98 (2): 184–204. Search in Google Scholar

Alexander, Gavin. 2004. “Introduction”. In: Gavin Alexander (ed.) Sidney’s ‘The Defence of Poesy’ and Selected Renaissance Literary Criticism. London: Penguin. xvii-lxxxviii. Search in Google Scholar

Barton, Anne. 1971. “Shakespeare and the Limits of Language”. Shakespeare Survey 24: 19–30. Search in Google Scholar

Booth, Stephen. 1997. “Shakespeare’s Language and the Language of Shakespeare’s Time”. Shakespeare Survey 50: 1–18. Search in Google Scholar

Charney, Maurice. 1973. “Shakespeare’s Unpoetic Poetry”. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 13.2: 199–207. Search in Google Scholar

Charney, Maurice. 2014. Shakespeare’s Style. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Cruse, Alan. 2006. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Döring, Tobias. 2006. Performances of Mourning in Shakespearean Theatre and Early Modern Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga. 1997. “Iconicity in Language and Literature: Language Innovation and Language Change”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 98: 63–87. Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga and Max Nänny. 1999. “Introduction: Iconicity as a Creative Force in Language Use”. In: Olga Fischer and Max Nänny (eds.). Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language and Literature. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 15–36. Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga and Max Nänny. 2001. “Introduction: Iconicity and nature”. European Journal of English Studies 5: 3–16. Search in Google Scholar

Groves, Peter. 2015. “‘My heart dances’: Performing Emotion through Shakespeare’s Rhythms”. In: R. S. White, Mark Houlahan and Katrina O’Loughlin (eds.). Shakespeare and Emotions: Inheritances, Enactments, Legacies. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 83–94. Search in Google Scholar

Honigmann, E.A.J. 1998. Myriad-minded Shakespeare: Essays on the Tragedies, Problem-Comedies and Shakespeare the Man, 2nd Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

Hope, Jonathan. 2010. Shakespeare and Language: Reason, Eloquence and Artifice in the Renaissance. London: Methuen. Search in Google Scholar

Houston, John Porter. 1988. Shakespearean Sentences: A Study in Style and Syntax. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kermode, Frank. 2000. Shakespeare’s Language. London: Penguin. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Mahler, Andreas. 2007. “Presented Representation – Intermedial Go-Betweens on the Shakespearean Stage”. Shakespeare Jahrbuch 143: 147–158. Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, P.H. 2007. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

McDonald, Russ. 2001. Shakespeare and the Arts of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

McDonald, Russ. 2006. Shakespeare’s Late Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Neely, Carol Thomas. 1991. “‘Documents in Madness’: Reading Madness and Gender in Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Early Modern Culture”. Shakespeare Quarterly 42.3: 315–338. Search in Google Scholar

Neely, Carol Thomas. 2004. Distracted Subjects: Madness and Gender in Shakespeare and Early Modern Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Pfister, Manfred. 1988. The Theory and Analysis of Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Rhodes, Neil. 2004. Shakespeare and the Origins of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Salkeld, Duncan. 1993. Madness and Drama in the Age of Shakespeare. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Salkeld, Duncan. 2005. “Literary Traces in Bridewell and Bethlem 1602-1624”. The Review of English Studies 56: 379–385. Search in Google Scholar

Sell, Jonathan P.A. 2006. Rhetoric and Wonder in English Travel Writing, 1560-1613. Aldershot: Ashgate. Search in Google Scholar

Sell, Jonathan P.A. 2013. “Terminal Aposiopesis and Sublime Communication: Shakespeare’s Sonnet 126 and Keats’ ‘To Autumn’”. In: Roger D. Sell and Inna Lindgren (eds.). The Ethics of Literary Communication: Genuineness, Directness, Indirectness. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 167–188. Search in Google Scholar

Stagg, Robert. 2015. “Shakespeare’s Rhythmic Education”. In: Elizabeth Dutton and James McBain (eds.). Drama and Pedagogy in Medieval and Early Modern England. Tübingen: Narr Franke Attempto. 173–182. Search in Google Scholar

Wright, George T. 1988. Shakespeare’s Metrical Art. Berkeley: University of California Press. Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-03-15
Published in Print: 2019-03-14

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston