[Charlie Southerland]

Matt, there are some variations from Catullus to Sappho, and others as well.
I just found it easier and more melodic to keep to the formula below. I do sub stresses in the anceps when it can be done in rhythm. Or when you are trying to make a "loud" type of function. There are programs to help you with dactyls, spondees, trochees and such. The key is learning how to read the sapphics out loud. Once you get that down, they are easier to write.


Lines 1,2,3 : — U — X — U U — U— X
Line 4 : — U U— X

[R. Nemo Hill]

The key is not to force the Sapphics onto the language, which is very difficult to resist. A line of 'free verse' that can withstand having the Sapphic rhythm imposed on it does not qualify as Sapphics to me. I see much of that in the Sapphics posted here lately. There must be no other possible way to read the Sapphic line than Sapphically.

Nemo

[Charlie Southerland]

I agree with that too, Nemo. However, I have read a couple hundred sapphic poems by various poets who have done nearly unspeakable things with the form. Many are written by famous poets. I see no blowback on their variations by anyone in the poetry world. None a'tall.

The form is the form. It should be lyrical (and rhythmic), almost the same thing. Good free verse by good poets seems to be rhythmic, almost formulaic too.

My point is that the form makes the rhythm happen in sapphics.

I have read sapphic poems of past well known poets to poetry groups and until I tell them, they think it is free verse. The form goes over their heads. It's mainly because there is little rhyme in sapphics, not that there can't be rhyming in sapphic stanzas; I've seen a few. It's impressive, done well.

Unless a listener's ear is attuned to the form, it's doubtful he or she could tell the difference between free verse and a good sapphic poem. Most comments I get when I read sapphics to folks are about lyrics and flow and depth of subject.

I certainly am no expert on the subject, but I know more than I did six months ago. I am always glad to see someone post one. But then, I like most poetry, even yours.

[R. Nemo Hill]

If the Sapphic rhythm drives strictly and strongly, I think it is the repetition of the pattern from stanza to stanza that announces the meter even to the untrained or unanticipating ear. That is why to the eye, on the page, where the voice has a choice, none can be offered: there can be only one way to emphasize the line, the dactyl must be tyrannical.

Nemo

[Mary McLean]

On the anceps issue, I usually try to end the stanza on a spondee if it isn't too forced. To me, that line represents a little jig and its variation from the other lines is enhanced by doing that. It's a good place to put a minor punchline in funny Sapphics (does anyone but me ever try to write such a thing?). But I never do it with the other 3 lines, because the end stopping tends to be too heavy as it is. I aim for those 3 lines to feel as much like free verse as possible, while maintaining tyrannically the Sapphic rhythm.