Shakespeare Wrote Doggerel

For about 2 years my mother and I worked together on a book of children’s poetry called Ned’s Journal, which described the “small and big life adventures of Ned,” a 10 year old boy. We were pleased to secure a publisher, Tatra Press, whose only previous publication was a guide to men’s clothing. While the book sold briskly in the 60045 zip code, sales fell dramatically off outside our home town– in fact there were virtually none – but that didn’t really matter. The principle goal was to get the book published.

My mother-in-law, who fashions herself as an arbiter of art and good taste, took a look at the book and said, “Why this is doggerel!” I bristled and gave Pat an unrecognized withering look. But then I realized that Ned’s Journal had that universal doggerelish beat of da-DAH, da-DAH, da-DAH/ dah, DA-da-da, DA-da-da dah. Then my pride of authorship kicked in and I thought yes, Pat is right, this is doggerel, but it was damn fine doggerel. The issue really was why doggerel was dismissed as an art form. I wondered how this poetic genre had gotten its poor reputation but had to go no farther than the on-line definitions of doggerel.

From Wikipedia

Doggerel describes verse considered of little literary value. The word is derogatory, from Middle English. Almost by definition examples of doggerel are not preserved, since if they have any redeeming value they are not considered doggerel. Doggerel might have any or all of the following failings:

trite, cliche, or overly sentimental content
forced or imprecise rhymes
faulty meter
misordering of words to force correct meter

From www.dictionary.com

dog·ger·el
n. Crudely or irregularly fashioned verse, often of a humorous or burlesque nature.

The derogatory tone of both these definitions is dispiriting, one can almost sense the contemptuous sniff from the anonymous Wikipedia author. If one judges literary value by what is taught in colleges, well, yes, doggerel may be wanting, but my contention is that doggerel is important to our lives and it should not be so cavalierly dismissed as an art. How many wedding albums include yellowed pieces of paper memorializing the awkward verse of a toast, how many birthdays and anniversaries are enlivened by friends and family standing up, willing to embarrass themselves by singing a poorly metered verse in a quavering and off-key voice? Such efforts are typically greeted with joyful groans and cheers in acknowledgement of the creative effort reflecting heartfelt good wishes. We all might like to write sonnets like Shakespeare, but realistically we settle for doggerel.

According to Wikipedia, overly sentimental content is a fatal flaw, but as I was sitting in church this past Sunday leafing through the hymnal, it occurred to me that many of these Presbyterian hymns could be classified as doggerel based on sappiness, to wit:

“Now the darkness gathers, stars begin to peep, birds and beasts and flowers soon will be asleep.

When the morning wakens, then may I arise, pure and fresh and sinless, in thy holy eyes.”

Don’t you agree that these verses to the hymn “Now the Day is Over” seem trite and oversentimental? And I am sure that I could find other hymns with off kilter meter to show that our treasured hymns fulfill multiple criteria for doggerel.

The online dictionary definition also states that doggerel can be defined by its “humorous and burlesque nature.” Here I see an opportunity to elevate doggerel to the rarified status of Shakespeare, since this towering linguistic icon suffuses all his plays and sonnets with incessant sexual puns and innuendos – the type of sophomoric puns that could be punctuated by a rimshot and an audience groan, progressing to burlesque, bawdy and then downright raunchy references. Shakespeare had the challenging task of appealing both to the masses and the English courts. Plays were wildly popular in Elizabethan England, and it is estimated 1 in 8 Londoners went to a play every week, ranging from the lowly laborers and apprentices, to country gentlemen, to aristocrats to Queen Elizabeth herself. Apparently bawdy and raunchy sexual wordplay was a real crowd pleaser across the entire spectrum of society.

The sexual puns that would be obvious to Shakespeare’s audience are now interpreted by modern readers as the epitome of English eloquence, simply because half of the time we probably don’t realize what Shakespeare is really talking about. By cross referencing “doggerel and Shakespeare” into Google, I stumbled across an interesting book called “Filthy Shakespeare,” which translates Shakespeare’s jargon into today’s vernacular. One of the first things you appreciate is the overwhelming number of idioms for “penis.” Basically you can assume that anything that is longer than it is wide is a phallic symbol. Also Shakespeare’s name itself is a sexual pun, since Will was a colloquialism for penis, vagina and sexual desire. And sorry to report this, but the word Shakespeare can roughly be translated to “masturbator.” So you can only imagine the kind of teasing the poor kid had to put up with.

Examples of Shakespeare’s idioms for male sexual organs include (but are certainly not limited to): beggar, carrot, dewlap, holy-thistle, instrument, kicky-wicky, little witness, needle, pizzle, potato-finger, pudding, three-inch fool and weapon. The corresponding female idioms are more numerous than males and include bird’s nest, bogs, dearest bodily part, low countries (including the Netherlands), medlar, rudder, salmon’s tail, snatch, tongue and velvet. Puns on sex itself include: boggler, change the cod’s head for the salmon’s tail, dance with one’s heels, dribbling dart of love, fill a bottle with a tun-dish, horsemanship, nose-painting, paddling palms and tickle one’s catastrophe. And I am just scratching the surface here.

Shakespeare certainly did not have to depend on clever idioms to get his point across. The following is an example of his signature word play, where the word “will,” repeated 13 times, can mean either Will (referring to a Christian name), or “will” referring to either a penis or vagina. In this sonnet, the Poet wonders if he can join the ranks of the Beloved’s lovers:

Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy Will,

And Will to boot, and Will in overplus.

More than enough am I that vex thee still,

To thy sweet will making addition thus.

With thou, whose will is large and spacious,

Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?

Shall will in others seem right gracious,

And in my will no fair acceptance shine?

The sea, all water, yet receives rain still,

And in abundance addeth to his store;

So thou, being rich in will, add to thy Will

One will of mine to make thy large Will more.

Let no unkind no fair beseechers kill;

Think all but one, and me in that one Will.

Okay folks, here is the translation from one Paula Kiernan, author of Filthy Shakespeare:

“While other women can only wish for sex, your sexual desires are fulfilled by your Will, and you’d get my penis in the bargain, in fact you would get an excess of sex.

I can perform better than all of your lovers put together and I will keep tormenting you with my sexual advances.

Will you not, with that vagina of yours which is large and spacious from so much use by other men, let me hide myself in you?

Are other men better endowed, and I cannot measure up?

The sea is all water, but it still receives rain, and adds to it abundantly. It’s the same with you.

Even though you are already rich in the number of your lovers, I am asking that you accept me as a lover. I am already aroused and my penis has grown larger.

Please stop saying no to my reasonable advances. Think of all your lovers as being a single one, and treat me as the only one that you desire.”

Now that we know what Shakespeare was talking about, I certainly think that this sonnet meets the burlesque and humorous criteria defining doggerel. I thought it might be quite challenging to show that Shakespeare also meets the second important criteria for doggerel – that of faulty or awkward meter. However, we need look no farther than the fourth line from the bottom (So thou…). The sonnet is written in iambic pentameter, meaning that there are 5 pairs of words, with the accent on the second word in each pair. Each line should thus contain 10 syllables, but low and behold, this single line contains 11 syllables. Apparently Willy Shakes has played fast and loose with the rules of the sonnet game, force fitting the word “being” into one syllable!

I rest my case. Shakespeare wrote doggerel.

So the next time you raise a toast at a birthday, wedding or other event, and stand to read your little ditty, hold your head high – you are in the company of greatness.