Metrical Issues

For those who have been following the metrics discussion started in the "Virgil" section, I decided to move it over here to "Poetry" where it can be continued without detracting from the discussion of eclogues and where others may take interet in Tod's very interesting question. Here are a few pertinent posts to catch people up (I couldn't figure out how to move the actual posts).

Posted by Tod Hackett (in response to my attempts to explain scansion):

Quote:

---

K. Gotta say this; know you'll probably dis me for it, PL...

I consider myself pretty good with words & sound. Been a choral musician all my life (since I was 7-- 20 years. Gawd, I feel old!), and I have an MA in English (Well, "Literary & Cultural Studies". That's what they called it at CMU. But then, it was a department full of Marxists).

The first time I heard pentameter and was really listening to it, it jarred me. I was all like, "What's up with the extra syllables?"

Tetrameter has ALWAYS made more sense to me. I'm guessing that this is b/c I'm a child of 80s electronica, Nirvana and gangsta rap (not in the "raised in the hood" sense; more in suburban white boy wannabe, "this $hit is fly, mom!" sense. I hear Dre, Ice Cube or Chali 2na, and I groove. It's infectious!). I guess that what I'm saying here is that, to me, pentameter isn't "pleasing to the ear". And to me, that says that (big surprise!) the sound of the language-- especially what one finds "pleasing"-- is culturally and temporally contingent.

So to me, the more interesting question is not "Why is pentameter naturally more balanced and pleasing?", but "Why does it seem that pentameter was 'naturally' more balanced and pleasing to certain English-speaking peoples, at certain times?" It's clear to me that I dig tetrameter because I grew up singing vocal jazz (which is HUGE in the Pacific Northwest), and listening to jazz, pop, rock and rap-- most of which is in 4/4. What's not clear to me is why pentameter might seem natural to others... was it b/c of some contemporary technology, or musical convention (I don't know of any time and/or place where "5" was popular. Until the 20th century!), or some other factor?

So, I'd like to hear your comments. Disagree, but don't Disrespect!

---

My reply:

Quote:

---

Hi Tod--An interesting question. Let me first state that I had actually not meant to imply that iambic pentameter was necessarily the one great meter that was universally pleasing to all ears. That would be a silly argument indeed, and I have also experienced great pleasure in hearing tetrameter, hexameter, and any number of other poetic lines both measured and free. I was trying to explain to someone who has little knowledge of any of these why English meter is of any interest at all, and what I should have said was that iambic pentameter is among those meters which are pleasing to the ear, or better yet that it is an example of one kind of meter and that meter in general is employed as a tool with which the poet controls the sound of his poetry and, through sound, the effect it will have on the reader/listener.

That said, let me try to address your question--I think an incredibly good one-- as to why this meter has been so hugely influential in English. This is something I've pondered a fair amount without any claim to having a definitive answer, since I'm not sure there's ever an absolute single right answer for explaining cultural tastes. Here, however are a few takes on the issue, all of which I think are contributing factors:

1.Obviously one could similarly ask why so many song lyrics employ tetrameter. On a certain level pentameter became popular, just as I stated above, because the sound of it was appealing to enough people that it caught on.

2.Most art forms, poetry being no exception, seem to develop some sort of forms and guidelines somewhere in their evolution, which artists either employ in an attempt to make their work more effective, or (after such forms have become too standard) rebel against in order to make their work stand out. For English poetry one of the major formal features that poets have followed/rebelled against is the iambic pentameter line.

3. But of course you are asking why this particular meter was chosen to function in this way. As a scholar of the late Medieval and Renaissance periods—the era when iambic pentameter was really established as the meter of choice for English poetry—I can try to give an answer from the historical perspective. There was in fact a fair amount of debate about how poets should go about writing during this time period. In England this occurred especially in the sixteenth century (just before and during the age of Shakespeare). The poets of this period went about trying to define what would make their poetry work best and experimented with different approaches to using meter, rhyme, etc. One idea was to try to apply the classical method of scansion (the method of the Greek and Roman poets) which depends not on stressed and unstressed syllables but long and short length syllables. This works pretty well with Latin, but (I can tell you from attempts I’ve seen) did not work well at all with English. What emerged was an adaptation of the classical system reliant on stresses to suit the modern languages. Anyway, having read a fair number of early experiments in English verse, I can tell you that iambic pentameter did really stand out as one of the better options, and the best adapted to the English language (much better than the often rather clumsy “fourteener” that was popular for some time—though it has its defenders). Iambic pentameter was elected the meter of choice for some of the best poets of this period, who in turn had a profound influence on the works of subsequent generations of poets.

4.There have actually been some studies done that iambic pentameter is the poetic meter which occurs most often naturally in day to day speech in English. I think Shakespeare demonstrated the potential of this meter to sound “natural” beautifully in his plays. His use of blank verse flows so easily, that most students first coming to Shakespeare don’t even realize to what extent he is sticking to the meter.

5. One final note on Tetra vs. Penta : I agree with you that tetrameter is very well suited to songs (and pentameter not so much), but I'm with Blue that it doesn't flow as easily as pentameter in poetry. Tetrameter tends to really make the rhythm of the poem stand out. This can be a good thing in providing a poem with a real driving rhythm, but it can also come across as a bit “sing song” if not handled right. I don’t claim one is better than the other, just that they suit different types of poetry.

Well, you can tell I could discuss prosody all day, so I’d better stop before I bore you to death (though I may already have acheived this)! There’s still lots to think on in your question. It's intriguing to contemplate what draws certain cultures to certain forms. The above discussion makes me wish I knew more about Chinese poetry (not to mention Chinese language) so I could compare a very different system to the European forms I'm familiar with.

---

Tod today:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
In England this occurred especially in the sixteenth century (just before and during the age of Shakespeare). The poets of this period went about trying to define what would make their poetry work best and experimented with different approaches to using meter, rhyme, etc. One idea was to try to apply the classical method of scansion (the method of the Greek and Roman poets) which depends not on stressed and unstressed syllables but long and short length syllables.


PL-- can you (1.) recommend any books/articles on this and (2.) explain "scansion" to me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
There have actually been some studies done that iambic pentameter is the poetic meter which occurs most often naturally in day to day speech in English.


I'd like to see these studies/articles/books. Could you give me any citations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Tetrameter tends to really make the rhythm of the poem stand out. This can be a good thing in providing a poem with a real driving rhythm, but it can also come across as a bit “sing song”


Why is this bad? What's the taboo against "sing song" poetry? I should think that poets would want their poems to be musical.

At the same time, I can understand how some poets, at certain points, would want to foreground things other than rhythm. But that would mean that they would move in and out of tetrameter, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Well, you can tell I could discuss prosody all day, so I’d better stop before I bore you to death...


I, too, could discuss prosody all day. Let's jive!

---

Also from Tod Hacket:

Quote:

---

My point in all this is to ask the following question: to what degree is English speech "naturally in" pentameter, and to what degree are you (meaning scholars, poets, etc.) putting it in pentameter? And is there a tension-- a struggle for vocal hegemony-- between those who tend to "hear in four" and those who tend to "hear in five"?

Another way to think about it: do all people hear speech-rhythms the same? In spoken speech, perhaps, but what about when speech is written? And what about people from cultures (I am thinking of the urban US) where speech is often overlaid onto 4/4 beats? Are these people likely to "read with a different rhythm"?

I'm ASK ing the QUEStions 'cause I'm CURious like that. [These last two are somewhere between stressed and unstressed, with equal "weight". But there's definitely a beat there!]

---

So, Tod, to continue our conversation.

Quote:

---

Why is this bad? What's the taboo against "sing song" poetry? I should think that poets would want their poems to be musical.

---

Just to be clear, I don't think that the strong rhythm of tetrameter is necessarily bad at all,(I'm not a pentameter pedant ;) ) but all meters (and in fact all poetic devices) have both good and bad aspects. You're absolutely right that the "sing song" quality can be very effective in making poetry musical. On the other hand, when it's badly done it can also come out as repetitive and simple sounding, like a nursery rhyme (which again, can be used very effectively in certain poems). Poe uses tetrameter to great effect in "The Raven." Song writers use it very skillfully. But if you've ever heard an entire play written in tetrameter (I'm thinking especialy of certain English translations of Moliere I've heard) then you would probably recognize how much more "natural" iambic pentameter sounds. Mind you, I'm not claiming that iambic pentameter is natural, just that it often seems to sound less obviously rythmic than some other meters.

I found the following relatively recent (as in last ten years) academic article online, which directly addresses some of the things we've been debating, and also talks about the relationship of speech to iambic pentameter.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...10/ai_n8758387

It provides some good summaries of some of the notable linguistic theories of meter, and has a nice bibliography of more places to go on this subject. I would warn you that it can be a bit dense (at least I personally found that I didn't always have sufficient formal training in linguistic studies to follow every nuance), but I think the main argument is very interesting and pertinent to our discusssions here.

The book that Virgil suggested back in the "Virgil" post may be a good place to start for a more foundational understanding of scansion. I'll see if I can think of any others. There's also this site which I've successfully recomended to students in the past who were interested in prosody (and have also found useful for my own knowledge):
http://academic.reed.edu/english/intra/2.html

If you're interested in learning more about the historical development of iambic pentameter in the Renaissance which I alluded to, the interesting primary sources of the time which discuss this issue, would be the 16th century poet, Phillip Sidney's Defence of Poesy, George Puttenham's The Art of English Poesy, and George Gascoigne's Certain Notes of Instruction. All of these are very interesting essays from the period when poets were interested in establishing the "norms" of English lit. and comment on the reasons they had for prefering certain metric forms over others. All these works can be found in a Penguin entitled Sidney's 'The Defence of Poesy' and Selected Renaissance Literary Criticism edited by Gavin Alexander, but they all, and the Sidney especially, have been anthologized in a lot of different places.

Also, I'll try to think of a good secondary source that charts the history of English prosody (since you may not necessarily have the time to steep yourself in Renaissance lit. crit. ;) ). Nothing's coming to mind right off the bat, but there are many good books out there on the subject.

Quote:

---

My point in all this is to ask the following question: to what degree is English speech "naturally in" pentameter, and to what degree are you (meaning scholars, poets, etc.) putting it in pentameter? And is there a tension-- a struggle for vocal hegemony-- between those who tend to "hear in four" and those who tend to "hear in five"?

---

I readily concede that almost any meter is going to be an artful device imposed upon language by "scholars, poets, etc." I find your point interesting however, that the meter we are most accustomed to hearing is the one that sounds most "right" to us. It touches on another hedy question that crops up in relationship to all sorts of art; is it enjoyable because it is beautiful, or because it is something familiar? When I visit the Art Institute here in Chicago I'm often struck by the visitors who say something like "Oh, see that's a Monet, that's a really good painting because I recognize it from a print my mom showed me in a book when I was a kid." Does the person really find the painting beautiful, or does it mainly strike a chord with them because it is familiar? Is there something actually inherently great about either pentameter or tetrameter, or do our minds partly appreciate them because they provide us with a familiar structure to think in? I personally think that there's a little bit of both nature and culture at work in our perception of things. Certain forms do seem to appeal naturally to people, and someone who's never seen a Monet before will probably still think the painting is lovely to look at. I would imagine that someone unfamiliar with iambic pentameter or tetrameter might still react favorably to the role the meter plays in a poem, even if he/she had not been steeped in such rhythms from a young age. At the same time, the familiar is probably more likely to be immediately liked and understood.
At any rate, I've wandered rather far afield. Feel free to bring the topic more back to metrics if you like. ;) Cheers.

The bar beckons...

Of the works you mentioned, PL, the only one I've read is Sydney's "Defence". I need to re-read it... that was the same week we read Shelley's "Defence", and I often elide the two in my head. Though, I remember liking Shelley a whole lot more.

I'll take a look at the other sources when I have time (inclination). Right now, I have drinking and writing to do, both on a short deadline.

As for the Monet anecdote...

Because I sing, and I'm serious about choral music, while at the same time studying under people in both college and grad school who subscribed to the Eagleton School of Aesthetics (that we usually find things beautiful not b/c it is, but b/c it's in someone's eonomic or political interest to keep us thinking it is), this question makes me really tense. I've gone back and forth on it-- do we things beautiful b/c we're programmed to, or b/c they are?

My current thought on this are complicated and long. I'll think about how to shorten them over a beer. That usually helps with a lot of things.

Quote:

---

Because I sing, and I'm serious about choral music, while at the same time studying under people in both college and grad school who subscribed to the Eagleton School of Aesthetics (that we usually find things beautiful not b/c it is, but b/c it's in someone's eonomic or political interest to keep us thinking it is), this question makes me really tense. I've gone back and forth on it-- do we things beautiful b/c we're programmed to, or b/c they are?

---

Tod--Dear me, I didn't want to make you tense. I sort of wandered into the aesthetic question while thinking about your question on metrics. Hopefully some pub time will give you a lovely period of relief from thinking of all things aesthetic.:nod: I alas am tied to laundry and a paper on Neoplatonism this evening--a Guiness sounds lovely about now. Ah well.
I've never been much of an Eagleton fan myself. I absolutely know that there are many things in art I respond to which have nothing whatever to do with social pressure. At the same time, one can't deny that social, economic, and political factors certainly have some influence over what we see and how we see it. Anyway, enjoy your writing and drinking. :banana:

PL--

Next time I'm up your way, I'll buy you a Guinness (if that's okay. And, if I'm ever again in Chicago!)

Funny thing about Eagleton... I first read him in a Literary Aesthetics class with Peggy Knapp, and she didn't seem to buy him either. At least, not the whole way. Although, I dig what he has to say about Kant and Marx. But there is something to be said for beauty-- true, joyous beauty-- and I wouldn't give it up without a fight. Maybe that's what Eagleton means by "ideology".

I remember papers... and I will probably have to do them again, at some point. But for now, I'm enjoying being gainfully employed.

Good luck woth the NeoPlatonism! Oh, and BTW, I'd like to hear your reactions on an obscure contemporary poet-- Bart Baxter. I read him and just the sound of his poetry gets me riled. My fav is "For Democracy", in _Peace for the Arsonist_. Take a look at it if you can get a copy, and tell me what you think!

Quote:

---

Next time I'm up your way, I'll buy you a Guinness (if that's okay. And, if I'm ever again in Chicago!)

---

Hey Tod, thanks for the offer.:)

Quote:

---

But there is something to be said for beauty-- true, joyous beauty-- and I wouldn't give it up without a fight.

---

Nor would I!

Quote:

---

I remember papers... and I will probably have to do them again, at some point. But for now, I'm enjoying being gainfully employed.

---

Oooo...gainful employment. I'll just have to try and hang on for a few more years, and then maybe I'll get to enjoy that too.

Quote:

---

Oh, and BTW, I'd like to hear your reactions on an obscure contemporary poet-- Bart Baxter. I read him and just the sound of his poetry gets me riled. My fav is "For Democracy", in _Peace for the Arsonist_. Take a look at it if you can get a copy, and tell me what you think!

---

I'll look him up when I get the chance, that is if Ficino and Hermes Trismegistus (Neoplatonists) don't swallow me whole in the next few weeks! :nod: By the way, when you say Baxter gets you riled, is that a good thing, a bad thing, or an indeterminate stirring of emotion? Hope you enjoyed your third Blue Moon (and maybe your fourth as well).

"Hair trigger, Night Train, fortified wine,
will he take her to the back,
will he beat her up bad?
Will he? Brawler-in-the-alley-Willy,
trashman-dour in the dark,
and the sharks and the marks
and the scared little runaways
in the crumby dumps,
and the picked-over dumpsters
turn tricks in the park.
Will he skintight, airtight, keep her quiet?
Will he keep her in the dark
till he can get the car turned around,
till he can tear off everything she wore,
till he can tear up everything
she ever came here for?
'She's a half-hearted little *****, isn't she?
She ain't so hot. Look at her.
She ain't nothin' now but Democracy.'"

That's the first section of "For Democracy", and that's what I mean by "just the sound of his poetry gets me riled". It's a good thing; I hear him and I rage, like hearing "Bulls on Parade" sung live.

This is one case where "*****" doesn't cut it!

I'm sure you can figure out what the "*****" stands for. But If noT, i'll Clarify tHings.

Because really, there are other Words tHat cOuld soRt of fit in thE rhyme scheme.

Yes Tod, I got the word, but I found your efforts at clarifying amusing. :lol: I see exactly what you mean about getting "riled" at the sound of the poem. Stylistically speaking I think it's very well done. Not only the rhythm of the poem but the anaphora is very effective. It draws you in and echos the rage and violence of the poem. Let me say though, that I don't care for the subject matter of the poem. As a female reader I object to the violence against women it portrays. This is not a prudish objection, or some idea that it isn't depicting a reality (I think it is unfortunately too real). I just don't like this kind of attitude and don't get much from reading it (even if it is gesturing toward some broader abstract notion at the end). Don't take this as any kind of judgement on you for pointing to the poem. It's just my personal reaction. I guess the poem gets me "riled" in a negative sense.

PL--

Yeah, the poem's got violence all the way through it. Democracy (both in the poem and real life) is born of violence, and the poem makes a point of that. In this poem, the violence done to Democracy by the Patriarchy (read: the French aristocracy or British King & Parliament in the late 18th century) becomes the cause and justification for violence done later by Democracy-- just like in real life. And, since "Democracy" is personified as a female (the examples that come immediately to mind are Lady Liberty and Hugo's Cosette, from _Les Miserables_), there will necessarily be some sexual violence involved in all this.

Of course, sexual violence is disgusting and abhorrent, but to me, that's what makes it such a good topic for rhetorical drama. One of my favorite shows is SVU, and it's largely b/c of the way the characters-- both perps and cops-- deal with sexual violence.

My this thread has gotten a bit off topic, eh?

Thank you both though for your earlier posts. I learned a lot, and hope to apply at least a bit to an essay I have to write.

Quote:

---

My this thread has gotten a bit off topic, eh?

Thank you both though for your earlier posts. I learned a lot, and hope to apply at least a bit to an essay I have to write.

---

Chmpman--It has indeed wandered off course a bit. I'm glad if the earlier posts helped you. If you or anyone else want to (re)introduce any metric related questions, you're more than welcome too. :D

Quote:

---

Yeah, the poem's got violence all the way through it. Democracy (both in the poem and real life) is born of violence, and the poem makes a point of that. In this poem, the violence done to Democracy by the Patriarchy (read: the French aristocracy or British King & Parliament in the late 18th century) becomes the cause and justification for violence done later by Democracy-- just like in real life. And, since "Democracy" is personified as a female (the examples that come immediately to mind are Lady Liberty and Hugo's Cosette, from _Les Miserables_), there will necessarily be some sexual violence involved in all this.

---

Tod--Thanks for the further explication. I figured there was probably some sort of allegory at play given the last line. It still doesn't endear me to the poem much though.

Quote:

---

Of course, sexual violence is disgusting and abhorrent, but to me, that's what makes it such a good topic for rhetorical drama. One of my favorite shows is SVU, and it's largely b/c of the way the characters-- both perps and cops-- deal with sexual violence.

---

Yeah, I'm not much of an SVU fan either. I guess it's just a case of different tastes. :nod:

Since I'd like to hear more thoughts about poetic meter, I'll chime in.

One point that hasn't been explicitly mentioned yet (perhaps because it is too obvious) is that most poems in "iambic pentameter" do not actually strictly adhere to the formula of five iambic feet per line. Lots of interesting effects come about through various substitutions. For example, the effect of an anapest (or dactyl) can be created by substituting a trochee for an iamb. Found almost universally in iambic x-ameter is the substitution of a trochee instead of an iamb in the first foot of the line. It seems like iambic pentameter is particularly versatile, but maybe that's just the consequence of being so widely used.

I think names like "iambic pentameter" can be thought of like key signatures in music. It just gives the overall feel, and it's up to the individual poem (or piece of music) how strictly the "rules" are kept.

Just some thoughts because I'd like to keep the discussion alive.

Hi Bluevictim--Thanks for getting us back on topic. :nod: This is an excellent point that hadn't been expressly considered in previous posts. For anyone out there unclear on the meaning of anapests, spondes and dactyls (oh my!), this site provides a quick at a glance identification of the major stress variations:
http://server.riverdale.k12.or.us/~bblack/meter.html
These are all designations that stem from classical prosody (though in the classical model it was short and long syllables rather than stresses and non stresses they were counting).

This is, of course, the real reason that iambic meters of all kinds have been able to hang on for so long. It allows for the type of variety and natural intonation that poets strive for, because, after all ^/^/^/^/^/gets just as audibly dull after awhile as those symbols look visually repetitive written out on the screen. ;)

One other aspect of meter which we have not yet mentioned is the caesura. This is the metrical center point of the line, the place where there is a pause spliting the line into (usually) two sections. Here is a pretty thorough discussion of the term:
http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics....c=true&UID=153

Generally it occurs at the center of the line but, as you can see from the examples on the website, the placement of the caesura and the length of the pause it creates, can greatly affect the sound of the line. Variations in placing the caesura are often effected by utilizing the kind of metric variations Bluevictim brought up. Longer lines such as pentameter and hexameter often lend themselves to more play with the type of metrical units employed as well as the placement of the caesura, which is one factor in such lines often being able to sound more flexible rhythmically speaking than trimeter or tetrameter.

OFF-TOPIC (slightly) hehehe - I had a supply teacher attempt to teach me and the rest of my class about iambic pentameter when I was 15 (I think the poem she used was "the sick rose" or something like that - I dunno it was by Blake) I was lost then. And reading this has confused me once more.
The strange bit was I was in the low level english class at school (my guidance counsellor :lol: said because I was taking so many science/technology based classes I could not be in the advanced course) so the majority of people she was teaching the stuff to were more interested in throwing things around the room than listening.

Anyway, I've distracted from the topic enough continue......

:lol: Hi kilted. Sorry to have confused you once again.:) If you want to learn how all this stuff works just say so. I would be willing to outline some of the basics for you, and others on the thread would probably help and/or benefit. But if you're just as happy living life without an in depth knowledge of metrics--well that probably just makes you normal (which is a very good thing :nod: ).

To add my two cents to the tetrameter versus pentameter dscussion:

I too think that iambic pentameter is the most natural english meter but one of my favorite poems of all time in english is actually in tetrameter: Tennyson's "In Memoriam."

Quote:

---

11
Calm is the morn without a sound,
Calm as to suit a calmer grief,
And only thro' the faded leaf
The chestnut pattering to the ground:

Calm and deep peace on this high wold,
And on these dews that drench the furze.
And all the silvery gossamers
That twinkle into green and gold:

Calm and still light on yon great plain
That sweeps with all its autumn bowers,
And crowded farms and lessening towers,
To mingle with the bounding main:

Calm and deep peace in this wide air,
These leaves that redden to the fall;
And in my heart, if calm at all,
If any calm, a calm despair:

Calm on the seas, and silver sleep,
And waves that sway themselves in rest,
And dead calm in that noble breast
Which heaves but with the heaving deep.

---

There's no question this sounds untypical, but I don't think it sounds sing-songy. Is the lesson that n the hands of a great poet, anything can sound natural?


Another point is the use of a caesura by some poets. Is this a way of skirtng the 10 syllable line? Is it really pentameter when a caserua is present? I mean it is ten syllables, but is it artifiacially created and the line can be naturally broken down at the point of the split?

Thank you Virgil. I've been saying all along that, while the fault of tetrameter is that it can be "sing-songy" at the worst of times, it can be used really successfully as well, and Tennyson did some fantastic things with tetrameter. In fact I'm often just amazed at how beautifully he controls the rhythms of the eight syllable line.

Quote:

---

Another point is the use of a caesura by some poets. Is this a way of skirtng the 10 syllable line? Is it really pentameter when a caserua is present? I mean it is ten syllables, but is it artifiacially created and the line can be naturally broken down at the point of the split?

---

This is an interesting take on the caesura. Why not simply make a new line where the pause comes? Let me first make clear that, while certain poets are more conscious than others of where to place the caesura, it is something that is present in most lines, not something certain poets choose to use. Also, the point of the caesura is generally that it is a slight pause or break in the line but not as dramatic as the pause at a line ending. I think the reader is meant to be concious of the ending of a line, and it would be somewhat audible as a line ending while reading, whereas a caesura should be registered subconsciously if at all. In musical terms I suppose one could say the line would be like a measure. Every measure within a given time signature has the same number of beats, just as every line in a given metrical system has the same number of beats. Just as the musical measure might be divided into either two half notes (two notes of two beats each) or a dotted half note and a quarter note (three beats followed by one beat), the iambic pentameter line can either be divided into two halves of five syllables each, with the caesura at the cener, or two parts with a caesura after the first six syllables, dividing it into portions of six and four beats (naturally there are other options as well). This doesn't change that the measure is still one measure though, or that the line is still one line.

That said, obviously, as you say these are all artificial constructs, as many poets have recognized when utilizing "unorthodox" line length. Also, as I considered your question I realized that Shakespeare does exactly what you suggest when he splits his blank verse lines between two speakers (something he does constantly). Take this excerpt from Romeo and Juliet:

Juliet ...Romeo, doff th name,
And for thy name--which is no part of thee--
Take all myself.
Romeo I take thee at thy word.
Call me but love and I'll be new baptized.
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.
Juliet What man art thou that, thus bescreened in night,
So stumblest on my counsel?
Romeo By a name
I know not how to tell thee who I am.

The pairs of lines I've highlighted in red are actually one line in iambic pentameter, but Shakespeare has broken them at the caesura to attribute them to two people. The fact that the "two lines" are metrically only one adds to the effect of the intimacy of the two lovers in this scene (there's often love in the air when a man and a woman start sharing lines ;) ). It also demonstrates just your point, that there is a fine line between a caesura and a line break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Another point is the use of a caesura by some poets. Is this a way of skirtng the 10 syllable line? Is it really pentameter when a caserua is present? I mean it is ten syllables, but is it artifiacially created and the line can be naturally broken down at the point of the split?

---

I think the answer is yes and no (as you probably would expect). I think there is a great illustration in the poem you quoted (one of my favorites, too).

Quote:

---

Calm and deep peace in this wide air,
These leaves that redden to the fall;
And in my heart, if calm at all,
If any calm, a calm despair:

---

The last two lines, taken in isolation, can easily be analysed as four lines of iambic dimeter, but that would not at all do when the rest of the poem (or even the rest of the stanza) is considered. The fact that they can play the part of iambic tetrameters produces a unity with the rest of the poem (and stanza) that would not be captured by simply calling them iambic dimeters.

I'm sorry if I confused with all the talk of substitutions. Again, the poem that Virgil posted has some excellent examples:

Quote:

---

Calm on the seas, and silver sleep,
And waves that sway themselves in rest,
And dead calm in that noble breast
Which heaves but with the heaving deep.

---

The first line can be scanned
CALM on | the SEAS | and SIL | ver SLEEP,
which is an example of the ubiquitous trochee in the first foot.

The third line can be scanned
and DEAD | CALM in | that NO | ble BREAST
That is, iamb, trochee, iamb, iamb. However, the substitution of a trochee (CALM in) in the second foot produces the effect of a spondee (DEAD CALM).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Does the person really find the painting beautiful, or does it mainly strike a chord with them because it is familiar? Is there something actually inherently great about either pentameter or tetrameter, or do our minds partly appreciate them because they provide us with a familiar structure to think in?

---

I find this interesting, so I guess it's my turn to go off-topic. I think there is a substantive difference between your Monet anecdote and the familiar structure of pentameters and tetrameters, and I thought I'd try to point it out.

I'll call the phenomenon of finding a painting beautiful because of having seen it as a child "familiarity", and I'll call the structure of pentameters and tetrameters "convention". Roughly speaking, "convention" connects me with other people, while "familiarity" connects me with myself (from a different time, perhaps). Thus, I would consider language an example of "convention", and I think poetic meter can take on some functions similar to language. Whether or not this comes about "naturally", the meter of a poem can have something akin to "meaning" (which can be shared between different people). For example, suppose your mother died (I really hope I haven't accidentally hit on some tragic coincidence) and I send you a sympathy card, and in it I write a limerick. Even if the words are, in fact, comforting and appropriate, the meter would probably kill the effect.

So, I would increase the options of the original question and ask, is this poem really beautiful in and of itself (is its beauty completely objective?), or is it just beautiful because of the "conventions" of my culture (is its beauty somewhat subjective?), or is it just beautiful because of my "familiarity" with it (is its beauty completely subjective?)?. Of course, the "or"s should not be taken exclusively. Of course, my own categorization is not necessarily natural, and anyone can come up with infinitely many ways to divide up the options.