“Meter in English”
Part I
Ferrick Gray
Poetically Speaking
Volume 3, Issue 4 (March 20)
Prefatory Comments
⠀ This essay is about another essay, namely Meter in English by Robert Wallace. He daringly put forth his ideas for simplifying the study of the structure of poetry. It was written in 1993 and later circulated to several other poets for comment. David Baker included their comments and Wallace's essay in the book Meter in English: A Critical Engagement. As one would expect, there were mixed thoughts. Some were very supportive of Wallace's ideas, and others were very critical. I have not read Baker's compilation, but I have read Wallace's essay. Later, I may read the responses to his essay, but I doubt that any will be able to persuade me to move from what I believe. In short, I believe in all of Wallace's comments and consider his work of prime importance for anyone working in structured verse. I recommend reading this essay! However, I do have a few comments to make, and for the most part, they may seem trivial, but I believe they are worth noting. Essentially, Wallace was proposing that English verse is exclusively or fundamentally iambic, and with this statement, he says, accentual-syllabic is English meter.
⠀ Wallace’s paper is rather lengthy, so I have opted to consider it in a number of more manageable parts, and clearly, this is the first part.
The Unit of Line
⠀ Wallace makes this comment regarding the unit of line:
It is the unit of line that distinguishes verse from prose or speech.
⠀ His use of line refers to what I would normally call a verse, but this is quite clear in the way he uses it. We would assume that this in itself is a reasonable factor that distinguishes poetry from prose or speech, but there have been some major changes in what is called poetry since he wrote this. Most changes have occurred in the twenty-first century, and Wallace died in 1999. I might say that he was fortunate not to see what has happened to poetry in general.
⠀ Although I would agree with his comment with respect to poetry proper, we find today that we have what I refer to as pseudo-verse libre. We see it all the time, and I have addressed it often. Commonly, it takes the form of prose that has been butchered to appear as poetry. For example, prose paragraphs that have rather random breaks for no reason, or are broken to resemble quatrains or some other structured form. When this occurs, Wallace's criterion fails.
The System of Measurement
⠀ When we scan verses, we are using the terminology from Greek and Latin poetry. There will always be some confusion due to the way they have been interpreted for English verse.
⠀ Although this may suit most of us adequately, at times, in specific feet, Greek and Latin meters were based on vowel duration, which is very different from what we do in English. Although there may be some correspondence, we are generally considering stressed and unstressed syllables rather than the long and short vowels.
⠀ In several cases, the Greek or Latin foot or measure does not exist in English, albeit some make attempts to demonstrate that they do. Wallace points out the unusual nature of the pyrrhic foot, and I would say that it does not exist in English verse. Furthermore, I would say that the spondee also does not exist in English verse. As for other feet, they may or may not exist. Examples may be the cretic and paeon, but there is no reason to assume that these are not allowable, although they may not necessarily correspond to the original interpretation of the Greek or Latin foot.
The Common Foot
⠀ One of the most common feet in English verse is the iamb. It is commonly featured in the five-measure foot of iambic pentameter. There is also the four-measure foot of iambic tetrameter.
⠀ Wallace's example is typical of iambic pentameter being:
Whĕn Ī | cŏnsīd | ĕr hōw | my̆ līght | ĭs spēnt
⠀ We find that the idea of stressed and unstressed works well enough, and we classify the verse as an iambic pentameter. This is not to say that every stress is equal or that every unstressed syllable is equal in strength or emphasis. This is the typical expected verse of ten syllables, much of the norm, but the idea of ten syllables is not necessary for a verse to be considered iambic pentameter.
⠀ Wallace also gives the example of:
Ănd yēt | ĭt māy | bĕ sa͞id | Ĭ lōved | hĕr de͞ar | ly̆
This is commonly known as the feminine ending due to the lesser emphasis on the final syllable. Wallace prefers to remove the terminology and refer to the ending simply as an e-s ending (extra-syllable ending).
The Feminine Ending
⠀ The so-called feminine ending is one of those things that sit well with iambic pentameter. It gives a rather pleasant sound to the end of a verse; there is no doubt regarding this matter.
⠀ Whether calling this an e-s ending is debatable. I believe that most would know it as the feminine ending, irrespective of what our understanding may be. I understand Wallace's desire to simplify matters, but I would question whether the name should be changed in such a way. We have long been taught the technical aspects of this perhaps archaic terminology, and the fact is, we do not need to know exactly why it is called such, because it is such an easy and pleasant thing to use. Is there really a need to change the name? Perhaps, but for the curious, it may be interesting to find out what a masculine ending is.
⠀ Even though we can use this type of ending easily, there is some confusion as to what it actually is. In most cases, it is regarded as an extra syllable to end an otherwise strict metrical verse. We call this type of syllable hypermetrical because it is outside of the standard metrics of the foot. This is likely the best interpretation of what this extra syllable is. For a verse to be scanned as iambic pentameter, this extra syllable would by necessity be ignored.
Ănd yēt | ĭt māy | bĕ sa͞id | Ĭ lōved | hĕr de͞ar (ly
⠀ The other possibility is to consider the final foot of three syllables. This would make this foot an amphibrach. Instead of the five iambs and hypermetrical syllable, there would be four iambs and an amphibrach. One would now wonder why we should call the verse iambic pentameter. The only way around this is to accept that the amphibrach is a suitable replacement for the lamb. In other words, a metrical substitution. These substitutions are very common now, and include the trochee, dactyl, and anapest. In reality, if we include the iamb and amphibrach, these five metrical feet make up most of our English verses.
The Headless Iamb
⠀ I call this the headless lamb, and this is a common occurrence of this phenomenon. It is not merely that there is an unstressed syllable at the start of a verse; the fact is that there is none. The effect is quite significant because it allows the remainder of the verse to be scanned as would be expected. This comes from an implied pause and allows the start of the verse to be a stressed syllable, being the first syllable of the verse.
⠀ This cannot be a case of a hypermetrical syllable because there is no syllable present. Hence, we may say that the verse is not regular, or lame. There are several terms for this, the major one being acephalous, meaning headless. It all seems to be a little strange, but we are talking about scansion, which must accord the rhythm, and basically the meter of the verse.
⠀ Wallace believes that for a verse where the first syllable is omitted, we should use the term anacrusis, meaning to strike up or the striking up of a tune. This term is definitely suitable as the others are a bit over the top in what they stand for, or mean, and often unnecessarily complicate the whole business.
The Anapest
⠀ There is great flexibility in an iambic pentameter verse. Various substitutions can be made without unduly altering the rhythm. Wallace does make some reference to pyrrhic and spondee feet. However, they are of some interest even though they only apply to Greek and Latin verse.
⠀ In English, it appears almost as an unwritten law that when the so-called pyrrhic occurs, it will be followed by a spondee. This is what is referred to as a double ionic (double iamb), and the occurrence of this is not common.
⠀ Trisyllable substitutions are allowable, with the anapest being very common, and from very early times, around 1500. It is no longer advised or recommended that elision be used to avoid the anapest in verse. Apart from being distracting, it also sets the verse up for being very monotonous. The anapest fits well into the pentameter rhythm in almost every area except the first foot.
Reading
⠀ Wallace makes a very astute observation about reading verses. Mainly in that we speak phrases with one primary stress for each phrase. Other syllables, being secondary stresses or unstressed, are spoken so rapidly that we scarcely notice any difference between them. If the rhythm is slowed, we may notice that the different stresses become apparent or more obvious. He would be correct in saying that no two iambic pentameter verses can ever be quite the same. Of course, people may always disagree on the scansion due to the way they read the verse.
Rōbs nōt | ōne līght | se͞ed frŏm | thĕ fe͞ath | ĕred grāss
I would not scan this using spondees. Mine would be to make use of the anapest with a likely pause. Pauses may be introduced whether punctuation or caesuras are present or not. I have removed the spondees, but the stressing would be very close. The stress is in comparison with the neighboring syllables.
Rōbs nŏt | ŏne lĭght se͞ed | ° frōm | thĕ fe͞ath | ĕred grāss
It is all a matter of interpretation of the reading. However, we must realize that this is a single verse that has been scanned without considering the previous or following verses. Both of the above would sit well with iambic pentameter.
Meter
⠀ When reading metrical verse, we are able to sense the rhythm and thence the underlying metrical pattern. The meter is useful because of its predictability, which helps with reading, and helps appreciate variations in the rhythm. However, although there are natural patterns in free verse, there is no sense of predictability.
⠀ Clearly, there are variations in the number of stresses, but I disagree that so much importance is given to the spondee. I believe that the double stress is not possible in English, and it is the trochee or iamb where the non-ictus has a slightly greater effect.
Conclusion
⠀ Wallace has made his stance very clear in this first section of his essay. As you may realize, a lot of his comments would have met with criticism. My only point of disagreement is in the use of spondees, which I believe can always be overcome. In the next major section of his work, he goes on to explain in more detail his idea of one meter in English verse, and the confusion brought about by using certain terminologies.