This is great. I think the article on contractions will be useful, it's one of the most misunderstood techniques by contemporary poets, even die-hard metrists. So often I'll see what should be a blatantly obvious contraction, but, because the editor didn't include an apostrophe in the text, the supposedly die-hard metrist will declare that it's a metrical substitution!
I wonder also if it might not benefit beginners to have a guide for how your system differs from what they'll hear from other metrists. I think your method is fine, but the people who learn from it might want to go out into the real world and read scansion from other writers as well and could get very confused, for instance, when they see a pump-forward scanned as just two standard iambs, which is the norm.
Yes, I find it infuriating how editors, in modernising the text, actively conceal the contractions and expansions. It’s an active disservice to the reader!
I have to say, I appreciate the suggestion you made. The most basic difference, of course, between my scansion and traditional disyllabic foot division is that I combine “feet” into rhythmic units to more closely reflect what I actually hear. But the attempt to uniformly mark off each beat individually does pose a particular issue in the case of the pump: if you attempt to divide the pattern into two individual feet, you actively conceal the beat pattern! You end up with “a foot” with no beats, followed by “a foot” with two beats. By any logical, consistent, or useful definition, “a foot” must contain one beat exactly! Even in the abstract, this pattern can only usefully be described as a “double foot”.
The pattern is often referred to as a “double iamb” (by those who don’t deny its existence altogether!), but even then, the “double iamb” is typically described as being composed of two feet: a pyrrhic and a spondee. But that means a “pyrrhic” with no beat and a “spondee” with two of them!
Many people (including even experienced formalists) think of accentual-syllabic meter as being defined by “feet”, without any reference to beats. The literal purpose of foot division is to mark off the beats in a consistent, repeatable manner, and that so many lose sight of that, or fail to recognise it, speaks to the pitfalls of over abstraction.
I might include a note on this, rather than disrupt the body of the text with an aside.
Thank you for your comments, Alex, that’s much appreciated!
I will say, I'm actually a Timothy Steeleist myself so would happily scan it as two iambs (I'd also encourage beginners to scan it as a pyrrhic followed by a spondee, if it makes their lives easier).
From a Steeleist perspective one doesn't view it as counting beats, but rather counting feet, which are then defined by the location within them of the relatively highest stress. From a Steeleist perspective, no foot has any effect on any other foot and most of what you're describing comes under "modulation". I would say that the two feet in a pump-forward are both iambic but with interesting modulations, the first being two very low syllables, the second two very high syllables, but still call them iambs because they're two syllable feet with the second syllable stronger than the first.
I think multiple systems for scansion are valid, and have different advantages. The advantage I find in Steele's system is that there's a clear distinction between breaking the pattern (variation) and varying within the pattern (modulation). An advantage of your system is that it allows quick and easy reference to common modulations. But by modelling these modulations within the main system, it seems to me to make the scansion messier and more information dense than might be ideal for just a quick understanding of the major variations that the poet is using.
As I identify a number of distinct repeatable patterns (which could be described as combinations of "feet"), that of itself renders my approach more "information dense" - and also more reflective of the variant patterns we actually hear! Dividing what I call a "swing" into a "trochee" and an "iamb", for instance, does nothing to reveal the rhythmic variation we *hear* (except in the rare cases of a "split swing"!).
I'm not sure what you mean within this context that "no foot has any effect on any other foot". Typically, in the case of the swing, we don't *hear* two separate feet. And certainly, for instance, a heavy offbeat tends, most often, to land differently at the opening of a line or phrase, as opposed to within a phrase. So placement does make a difference!
"From a Steeleist perspective one doesn't view it as counting beats, but rather counting feet, which are then defined by the location within them of the relatively highest stress." So you see feet as being defined by stress placement *as opposed* to beat placement? I honestly don't understand the utility of not defining feet in relation to beats! I do not agree that two adjacent syllables cannot carry equal stress, as you seem to imply (a noun following an adjective has *grammatical* primacy, but that doesn't mean it carries greater sonic stress!), but putting that aside, meter, surely, is organised rhythm, and rhythm implies beats. So how and why would you divorce an attempt to divide a line into its smallest rhythmic components from its beats?
It is the rhythmic beats, their number and pattern, that we actually *hear*! You can only appreciate the meter of a poem if you *hear* the rhythm. When we hear rhythm, by definition, we hear beats. And in scansion, done successfully, we mark where we hear the beats!
Something funny is that I seem to basically always agree with you on your readings of the lines. We have very similar ears. I think it's really the method of depicting them where we differ. This is in stark contrast to my fellow Steeleist, Elijah, from the conversation you link to, who I constantly find myself disagreeing with about such things, even if he uses the same system.
I think we're probably at an impasse because to me all I can hear you saying is "but what about modulation!", to which I reply, I can talk about that separately, that's why I make the distinction in the first place! We're talking different languages. But here's my attempt to translate my language:
A reader hears formal lines on two different levels at all times. One is rhythm and the other is meter. The meter is a consistent flowing pattern that moves through different rhythms. When I analyse the meter I'm showing how the line matches the pattern or deviates from the pattern (in iambic pentameter the pattern being 5 groups of two syllables where the second syllable is stronger). When I analyse the modulation I'm showing how the rhythm as a whole sounds, not how it matches the expected pattern. I truly don't hear the "departure from the iambic default" that you talk about when I hear modulation, it's just a different flow within the iambic default. Significant amounts of substitution can make it harder to hear this constantly flowing iambic pattern, but consider how it feels to read a Pope poem. The only variation is trochaic substitution in very clean locations which actually end up accentuating the iambic sound. The iambic pattern becomes so clear and easy to hear that no modulation could possibly impact the iambic feeling and sound.
On the question of two syllables together equally stressed. As your own analyses of spondees and pyrrhics in this article shows, in most cases there is one syllable that is clearly stronger. But there can sometimes be very lineball cases where one could argue for either a trochee or an iamb, but I don't see the benefit of focussing on such things since it won't clash at all with the overall pattern and doesn't make much difference to the ear at all. So I say just count the stress as following the pattern (call it an iamb) or call it a pyrrhic/spondee even while claiming such a thing is impossible (I'm a practical man unencumbered by the need for self-consistency)
Yeah, I think it’ll be too finicky for us to spend more time trying to tease out and pin down exactly what it is we agree and disagree on. As you say, it feels a little like we’re using different languages. With something this technical, it can be tricky to pin down agreements and disagreements regardless!
I admire and endorse your pragmatism! There are different kinds of relative emphasis besides what I hear as stress, so I don’t know if that might account for the gap in what we’re hearing, or how we define it, but, yes, it’s pretty moot - *if* we’re in agreement on beat placements.
Both basic and original. Absolutely convincing categories and examples. It'll take me a few reads to absorb this all, but I appreciate having it all in one place. Thank you!
Lovely depth of detail! Yes, Shakespeare puts so many acting cues in the text just by how he shapes the verse. It’s your main director as a Shakespeare actor
This is so informative and entertaining simultaneously. The thorough exploration of meter, preceding the breakdown of Shakespearean form, aptly prepares and primes the writer to try it on their own! Amazing content!
Because "creeps *in*" is literally the meaning! The grammatical subject is "this petty pace", but he rearranges the syntax:
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, [this petty pace] creeps in from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time"
These rearrangements of syntax, manipulating the emphasis, are extremely common in Shakespeare (and you will find that every actor, like me, accents "in").
If "tomorrow" were the intended grammatical subject, you would be quite right, Mark: the stress on "in" would make no sense. And the wording and punctuation would likely be different:
Thank you, Keir. Your rearrangement is striking. I still can’t hear it, but maybe it will dawn on me. Ah! I can hear it, with a slight pause after accented “Creeps”?—so not phrasal verb “to creep in,” but “to creep”– in this petty pace, as if one were looking at it, bug-like, beneath one, going so slowly.
Though I prefer the pacing of Zainab Hasan's delivery: https://youtu.be/81-dSVC9t4M?feature=shared. I would have liked her to commit even more, in fact, starting with an even swifter, more committed delivery of the opening line (and note she also, unlike McKellen, contracts "syllable", as the meter demands).
It's a layered speech, but the ingredient I usually find missing from performance is that "fury"!
Thanks. Now I can't hear it. I don't hear "creeps in." I heard "creeps" in. Maybe "phraslal verb" just confuses the issue. In this petty pace day after day life creeps. It's a microsecond we're talking about. Life may or may not creeps from day to day, but talk goes or runs.
So glad you’re compiling your knowledge—I hope some poets make the effort of working through your points, as I know from experience that you can bring clarifying or inspiring insights even to fairly seasoned writers’ or readers’ minds.
For the sake of any poetry newbies who have found their way here: Congratulations—you’re a step ahead of the game if you’re going to chew the principles of meter as considered by Keir.
If you find his explanation of how to hear stress confusing to your ear, know that there is infighting on this subject. Keir’s ear is finely attuned to pitch as the indicator, which does not work for my ear. I personally hear stress primarily as force/volume, although that might not be the best description for EVERY single word in the English vocabulary . There may be rare instances where I hear stress primarily according to another category. The elements of stress in English that are typically circled around by metricists and linguists are a combination of force/volume, pitch, and length. When you are just starting out, or when your ear is feeling particularly scrambled as you try to scan something, you may find it helpful to look in the dictionary to check what you think you’re hearing against the stress pronunciation offered there (however, there will also be regional variations and some instances where the stressed syllable can reverse order in the context of meter). Ultimately you’ll need to figure out what makes the most sense for your ear, or else you’ll end up perpetually frustrated and talking unnaturally when you read a poem.
I don’t know the implication of these comments as I have not read Derek Attridge (though I have heard of him). I trust they’re not directed at me with any snarky intent?
None from me. His work (often assigned to undergraduates) is considered the standard guide to rhythm and metre in English poetry. It's good work, however, I find some of his terminology (including "promoted" and "demoted") very confusing and even unhelpful.
This is great. I think the article on contractions will be useful, it's one of the most misunderstood techniques by contemporary poets, even die-hard metrists. So often I'll see what should be a blatantly obvious contraction, but, because the editor didn't include an apostrophe in the text, the supposedly die-hard metrist will declare that it's a metrical substitution!
I wonder also if it might not benefit beginners to have a guide for how your system differs from what they'll hear from other metrists. I think your method is fine, but the people who learn from it might want to go out into the real world and read scansion from other writers as well and could get very confused, for instance, when they see a pump-forward scanned as just two standard iambs, which is the norm.
Yes, I find it infuriating how editors, in modernising the text, actively conceal the contractions and expansions. It’s an active disservice to the reader!
I have to say, I appreciate the suggestion you made. The most basic difference, of course, between my scansion and traditional disyllabic foot division is that I combine “feet” into rhythmic units to more closely reflect what I actually hear. But the attempt to uniformly mark off each beat individually does pose a particular issue in the case of the pump: if you attempt to divide the pattern into two individual feet, you actively conceal the beat pattern! You end up with “a foot” with no beats, followed by “a foot” with two beats. By any logical, consistent, or useful definition, “a foot” must contain one beat exactly! Even in the abstract, this pattern can only usefully be described as a “double foot”.
The pattern is often referred to as a “double iamb” (by those who don’t deny its existence altogether!), but even then, the “double iamb” is typically described as being composed of two feet: a pyrrhic and a spondee. But that means a “pyrrhic” with no beat and a “spondee” with two of them!
Many people (including even experienced formalists) think of accentual-syllabic meter as being defined by “feet”, without any reference to beats. The literal purpose of foot division is to mark off the beats in a consistent, repeatable manner, and that so many lose sight of that, or fail to recognise it, speaks to the pitfalls of over abstraction.
I might include a note on this, rather than disrupt the body of the text with an aside.
Thank you for your comments, Alex, that’s much appreciated!
I will say, I'm actually a Timothy Steeleist myself so would happily scan it as two iambs (I'd also encourage beginners to scan it as a pyrrhic followed by a spondee, if it makes their lives easier).
From a Steeleist perspective one doesn't view it as counting beats, but rather counting feet, which are then defined by the location within them of the relatively highest stress. From a Steeleist perspective, no foot has any effect on any other foot and most of what you're describing comes under "modulation". I would say that the two feet in a pump-forward are both iambic but with interesting modulations, the first being two very low syllables, the second two very high syllables, but still call them iambs because they're two syllable feet with the second syllable stronger than the first.
I think multiple systems for scansion are valid, and have different advantages. The advantage I find in Steele's system is that there's a clear distinction between breaking the pattern (variation) and varying within the pattern (modulation). An advantage of your system is that it allows quick and easy reference to common modulations. But by modelling these modulations within the main system, it seems to me to make the scansion messier and more information dense than might be ideal for just a quick understanding of the major variations that the poet is using.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
As I identify a number of distinct repeatable patterns (which could be described as combinations of "feet"), that of itself renders my approach more "information dense" - and also more reflective of the variant patterns we actually hear! Dividing what I call a "swing" into a "trochee" and an "iamb", for instance, does nothing to reveal the rhythmic variation we *hear* (except in the rare cases of a "split swing"!).
I'm not sure what you mean within this context that "no foot has any effect on any other foot". Typically, in the case of the swing, we don't *hear* two separate feet. And certainly, for instance, a heavy offbeat tends, most often, to land differently at the opening of a line or phrase, as opposed to within a phrase. So placement does make a difference!
"From a Steeleist perspective one doesn't view it as counting beats, but rather counting feet, which are then defined by the location within them of the relatively highest stress." So you see feet as being defined by stress placement *as opposed* to beat placement? I honestly don't understand the utility of not defining feet in relation to beats! I do not agree that two adjacent syllables cannot carry equal stress, as you seem to imply (a noun following an adjective has *grammatical* primacy, but that doesn't mean it carries greater sonic stress!), but putting that aside, meter, surely, is organised rhythm, and rhythm implies beats. So how and why would you divorce an attempt to divide a line into its smallest rhythmic components from its beats?
It is the rhythmic beats, their number and pattern, that we actually *hear*! You can only appreciate the meter of a poem if you *hear* the rhythm. When we hear rhythm, by definition, we hear beats. And in scansion, done successfully, we mark where we hear the beats!
I suspect we won't reach full agreement, but if it interests you, I have had quite an extensive discussion about Steele's approach before: https://substack.com/@snapdragons/note/c-223924135?r=9w4rx&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Something funny is that I seem to basically always agree with you on your readings of the lines. We have very similar ears. I think it's really the method of depicting them where we differ. This is in stark contrast to my fellow Steeleist, Elijah, from the conversation you link to, who I constantly find myself disagreeing with about such things, even if he uses the same system.
That is really interesting! Thank you for your engagement, Alex!
I think we're probably at an impasse because to me all I can hear you saying is "but what about modulation!", to which I reply, I can talk about that separately, that's why I make the distinction in the first place! We're talking different languages. But here's my attempt to translate my language:
A reader hears formal lines on two different levels at all times. One is rhythm and the other is meter. The meter is a consistent flowing pattern that moves through different rhythms. When I analyse the meter I'm showing how the line matches the pattern or deviates from the pattern (in iambic pentameter the pattern being 5 groups of two syllables where the second syllable is stronger). When I analyse the modulation I'm showing how the rhythm as a whole sounds, not how it matches the expected pattern. I truly don't hear the "departure from the iambic default" that you talk about when I hear modulation, it's just a different flow within the iambic default. Significant amounts of substitution can make it harder to hear this constantly flowing iambic pattern, but consider how it feels to read a Pope poem. The only variation is trochaic substitution in very clean locations which actually end up accentuating the iambic sound. The iambic pattern becomes so clear and easy to hear that no modulation could possibly impact the iambic feeling and sound.
On the question of two syllables together equally stressed. As your own analyses of spondees and pyrrhics in this article shows, in most cases there is one syllable that is clearly stronger. But there can sometimes be very lineball cases where one could argue for either a trochee or an iamb, but I don't see the benefit of focussing on such things since it won't clash at all with the overall pattern and doesn't make much difference to the ear at all. So I say just count the stress as following the pattern (call it an iamb) or call it a pyrrhic/spondee even while claiming such a thing is impossible (I'm a practical man unencumbered by the need for self-consistency)
Yeah, I think it’ll be too finicky for us to spend more time trying to tease out and pin down exactly what it is we agree and disagree on. As you say, it feels a little like we’re using different languages. With something this technical, it can be tricky to pin down agreements and disagreements regardless!
I admire and endorse your pragmatism! There are different kinds of relative emphasis besides what I hear as stress, so I don’t know if that might account for the gap in what we’re hearing, or how we define it, but, yes, it’s pretty moot - *if* we’re in agreement on beat placements.
I’m not sure if you might have missed the greater part of my convo with Elijah (multiple threads are easily misnavigated), so I’ll leave this extra link, just in case: https://substack.com/@snapdragons/note/c-224475199?r=9w4rx&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Both basic and original. Absolutely convincing categories and examples. It'll take me a few reads to absorb this all, but I appreciate having it all in one place. Thank you!
So exciting! This one belongs under Bookmarks with extra stars!
Thank you so much, Gemma - and for all your incredibly helpful feedback!
Lovely depth of detail! Yes, Shakespeare puts so many acting cues in the text just by how he shapes the verse. It’s your main director as a Shakespeare actor
The missing beat is a fun acting cue not many people are aware of! https://poemshape.substack.com/i/182765436/the-missing-beat
Yes! As are shared lines!!
As are *apparent* epic caesuras in shared lines! https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23268263.2016.1143295
Absolutely!
Oh my goodness. This is so comprehensive. Thanks for all this, Keir. Bookmarking so I can keep circling back.
This is so informative and entertaining simultaneously. The thorough exploration of meter, preceding the breakdown of Shakespearean form, aptly prepares and primes the writer to try it on their own! Amazing content!
Nice to know I succeeded in my aims!
why accent "in" in "Creeps in"???!!!
Because "creeps *in*" is literally the meaning! The grammatical subject is "this petty pace", but he rearranges the syntax:
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, [this petty pace] creeps in from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time"
These rearrangements of syntax, manipulating the emphasis, are extremely common in Shakespeare (and you will find that every actor, like me, accents "in").
If "tomorrow" were the intended grammatical subject, you would be quite right, Mark: the stress on "in" would make no sense. And the wording and punctuation would likely be different:
"...tomorrow creeps at a petty pace...".
Thanks for the question!
Thank you, Keir. Your rearrangement is striking. I still can’t hear it, but maybe it will dawn on me. Ah! I can hear it, with a slight pause after accented “Creeps”?—so not phrasal verb “to creep in,” but “to creep”– in this petty pace, as if one were looking at it, bug-like, beneath one, going so slowly.
No, it is the phrasal verb! He feels time as encroaching.
Here's Ian McKellen's performance: https://youtu.be/4LDdyafsR7g?si=FVA-dlNPLidg79rN
Though I prefer the pacing of Zainab Hasan's delivery: https://youtu.be/81-dSVC9t4M?feature=shared. I would have liked her to commit even more, in fact, starting with an even swifter, more committed delivery of the opening line (and note she also, unlike McKellen, contracts "syllable", as the meter demands).
It's a layered speech, but the ingredient I usually find missing from performance is that "fury"!
Can't see the Hasan at this link, mcKellan seesm to me to make it zombie.
Looks like I accidentally shared Mckellen’s twice over. I’ve edited - let me know if the second link works.
Thanks. Now I can't hear it. I don't hear "creeps in." I heard "creeps" in. Maybe "phraslal verb" just confuses the issue. In this petty pace day after day life creeps. It's a microsecond we're talking about. Life may or may not creeps from day to day, but talk goes or runs.
So glad you’re compiling your knowledge—I hope some poets make the effort of working through your points, as I know from experience that you can bring clarifying or inspiring insights even to fairly seasoned writers’ or readers’ minds.
Thanks, Deborah!
For the sake of any poetry newbies who have found their way here: Congratulations—you’re a step ahead of the game if you’re going to chew the principles of meter as considered by Keir.
If you find his explanation of how to hear stress confusing to your ear, know that there is infighting on this subject. Keir’s ear is finely attuned to pitch as the indicator, which does not work for my ear. I personally hear stress primarily as force/volume, although that might not be the best description for EVERY single word in the English vocabulary . There may be rare instances where I hear stress primarily according to another category. The elements of stress in English that are typically circled around by metricists and linguists are a combination of force/volume, pitch, and length. When you are just starting out, or when your ear is feeling particularly scrambled as you try to scan something, you may find it helpful to look in the dictionary to check what you think you’re hearing against the stress pronunciation offered there (however, there will also be regional variations and some instances where the stressed syllable can reverse order in the context of meter). Ultimately you’ll need to figure out what makes the most sense for your ear, or else you’ll end up perpetually frustrated and talking unnaturally when you read a poem.
something something Derek Attridge something something
Definitely DO NOT mention "promoted" and "demoted".
I don’t know the implication of these comments as I have not read Derek Attridge (though I have heard of him). I trust they’re not directed at me with any snarky intent?
None from me. His work (often assigned to undergraduates) is considered the standard guide to rhythm and metre in English poetry. It's good work, however, I find some of his terminology (including "promoted" and "demoted") very confusing and even unhelpful.