Meter in English (Part II)
What are the Metrical Feet in English Verse?
a diversion by
Ferrick Gray
Poetically Speaking
Volume 3, Issue 5 (April 4)
Prefatory Comments
⠀ It would be suitable at this stage to list the ten articles (what I will refer to as maxims) listed by Robert Wallace in his 1993 essay, Meter in English.
- Instead of the term feminine ending, we should say simply extra-syllable ending, which may be abbreviated as e-s ending. (Equally, we may speak of extra-syllable or e-s rimes.)
- For an omitted first syllable of a line, we should use the term anacrusis (from Greek, meaning the striking up of a tune).
- Quantities are not a basis for meter in English.
- Syllabics is not a meter in English.
- In modern English, accentual meter does not exist.
- Anapests (⏑ ⏑ –) and dactyls (– ⏑ ⏑) are legitimate substitutions in the iambic norm of English meter.
- We should drop the pyrrhic foot (⏑ ⏑) and accept in its place the double-iamb (⏑ ⏑ – –), as one of the six foot-terms necessary: iamb (⏑ –), trochee (– ⏑) , anapest, dactyl, spondee (– –), double-iamb.
- Anapestic, trochaic, and dactylic meters do not exist in English.
- We should never use four degrees of speech stress for scanning.
- The spondee is good, and fairly frequent, foot in English.
Regarding these Maxims
⠀ I have partial disagreement with points seven and ten. I will address these minor objections in what follows. My diversion at this point is to consider the metrical feet used in English verse.
Metrical Feet in English Verse
⠀ There are a couple of points I would like to make regarding the metrical feet we find in English verse. Essentially, we have borrowed and adulterated the Greek and Latin systems to create an equivalent measure in English. For the most common feet, it is not a bad approximation, albeit on a different level. However, that level, or those levels, are not too far away from each other.
⠀ For some time, I considered that there were basically, or should I say only, five metrical feet from the Greek/Latin definitions that appear in English verse. I proffered these to be: iamb, trochee, anapest, dactyl, and amphibrach. For the most part, these five serve us quite well, but exceptions do occur. As we know, it is the exceptions that make us rethink what we once thought may have been workable.
⠀ When Robert Wallace unleashed his essay Meter in English, he was considering six metrical feet. These were: iamb, trochee, anapest, dactyl, spondee, and double-iamb. We are listing the iamb as the first since it is the basis of our metrical system. I am in full agreement with Wallace on this point.
Spondee
⠀ However, the choice of feet, or at least the initial choice, is still somewhat wanting. My disagreement, or grievance, is with the spondee. In the Greek/Latin system, the spondee corresponds to two long vowels, whereas in English, we would equate it with two stressed syllables. In general, the approximation is not too bad and is quite workable within the framework of our scansion. What irks me, if you will, is that I cannot see how it is possible to stress two consecutive syllables equally and successfully as a metrical foot.
⠀ What I find is that the spondee is more a rhythmical variation rather than a metrical foot in English. In English verses, it is more a variation of other feet, these of course being the iamb and trochee. I believe that when the spondee is mentioned, one of the syllables will be slightly more stressed than the other. There may not be a definite obviousness about it, but the two will not be the same. After all, we denote the stressing (or un-stressing) according to those syllables on either side of the one we are considering. So, rather than use the spondee, I suggest using the appropriate demotion of one of the syllables.
Double-Iamb
⠀ My other concern is with the double-iamb, which is not at all what its name may suggest. It is not simply two iambs together, or one following the other. There must be something to differentiate it.
⠀ The reason for my skepticism of the double-iamb is its combination of what we might call the pyrrhic and spondee. Whether either of these can be called an extension (or extender) to another foot is questionable. I would go as far as to say that the pyrrhic foot does not exist in English verse at all. With the double-iamb, it appears that it does in some manner. I think it is much the same as the spondee in that it is a rhythmical variation in English and not a foot as in the Greek or Latin. Similarly, I cannot see that it is possible to have two unstressed syllables as a metrical foot. One does not write pyrrhic verse, nor spondee verse. Thus, I would not be tempted to invoke the double-iamb, and instead, I would consider a suitable promotion or demotion of stress, the combination of which would depend upon the interpretation. Whereas the dactyl, anapest, amphibrach, and bracchic feet have two unstressed syllables or two stressed syllables, they are classified as metrical feet, and it is possible to write English verse in terms of them. However, there are two which may come into question, these being the dactyl, but more so the amphibrach. In some instances, it may appear that these feet are present, but careful scanning would most likely show otherwise. Just as such feet as the cretic and paeon may appear in a word itself. For example, shadowiness may be interpreted as primus paeon (— ⏑ ⏑ ⏑) as a word itself, but its actual scansion would depend on which words were on either side, that is, neighboring syllables. The promotion or demotion of stress may show otherwise.
Amphibrach
⠀ The particular case is that of the amphibrach in what we may call the feminine ending. Having discussed the feminine ending before, it is questionable as to what the last three syllables represent. The typical feminine ending in iambic pentameter takes the form:
or perhaps
⠀ This is to say that the fifth foot may be an amphibrach, or in the second case, that there is simply an extra syllable. In both cases, we interpret the line as iambic pentameter because the rhythm is not violated in any way, and the ending is quite pleasant.
⠀ Yet how can we say that the first case is iambic pentameter when it is only comprised of four iambs? To overcome this, we can say that the amphibrach is a valid substitution for the iamb because it keeps with the rhythm. However, this may not be very convincing.
⠀ The second case is more convincing, in that we would call the final syllable hypermetrical because it is outside of the expected metrical scheme.
⠀ An extra (at the end) or missing syllable (at the start) in iambic pentameter verses is not unusual, and both are used with great effect. So it would appear that the best we might come up with is simply that it is an extra syllable, as Wallace has stated. In effect, these extra or missing syllables have little to do with the scansion of verses.
Wallace’s Choice of Metrical Feet
⠀ In his Meter in English, Wallace initially chose six metrical feet for his, what we may call, metrical system. These feet were the iamb (as the basis for English verse), trochee, anapest, dactyl, spondee, and double-iamb. He later changed these to the iamb (still as his metrical base), trochee, anapest, bacchic, spondee, and pyrrhic.
⠀ I cannot say that I agree with the choice of spondee and pyrrhic for reasons I have stated previously. As a result. I could prune English verse to just four metrical feet with an iambic basis.
⠀ With these four feet, I would also include and agree with Wallace's e-s ending and anacrusis.
⠀ I am happy to abandon the amphibrach and dactyl as they can likely, if not always, be scanned using one or more of the other four feet. I have at one point considered the bacchius, but initially thought it may be a less common foot than the amphibrach to appear in scansion. By analyzing some of Wallace's scansion, I stand corrected, and find that the bacchic foot is more common than once thought.
⠀ As for the change that Wallace made, this comes from an in-depth and intense study of the English verse, both the formal and so-called free verse. What one may find as appropriate one time, may indeed need some further analysis. In this case, his change was for the better.
⠀ It is not that I necessarily disagree with his use of the spondee and pyrrhic; all is fair. But I do not believe they can be classified as metrical feet in English. Hence, I would opt for classifying these two syllable feet as either iamb or trochee, and solely as a rhythmical variation of the iamb or trochee.
Scanning
⠀ Where Wallace has indicated a possible variation in the spondee (or pyrrhic) as he has scanned – (–) using the parentheses, I believe it should simply be represented as ⏑ , and avoid any further confusion. This type of variation will often be left to the reader of the verses, rather than setting the stress nature in concrete, and let’s face it, sometimes a choice should not be given.
⠀ As an aside, I do not believe that what is referred to as free verse **is metrical. I would actually say, with great confidence, that no such type of verse exists. I believe it was all a crazy push in the hope that the style of poetry could be changed. As we understand it now, this is not the case, nor can it be.
Concluding Comments
⠀ Wallace has taken an enormous step to simplify our understanding and scanning of English verses. This method, if you like, has not only benefited formal poetry, but also what has been known as free verse. Wallace’s analysis of free verse has demonstrated that, in reality, free verse does not exist in the manner that poets thought.
⠀ Hopefully, other teachers and students will follow, or even slightly modify Wallace’s work to determine why verses are as they are, and not otherwise.