Wonderful to have you here! At breakfast at West Chester, I called you Tim, but I feel like I should say "Dr. Steele" --

I've got two questions related to other threads at Eratosphere, but I'll save the second for another thread. The first concerns the first line of Frost's "Death of the Hired Man": "Mary sat musing on the lamp-flame at the table." Caleb Murdock said the line wasn't IP, and I gave a scansion which I wrongly claimed was regular IP: MAry | sat MUS | ing ON | the LAMP- | flame AT | the TABle. Initial trochee, feminine ending, and so far so good -- but, as Carol Taylor pointed out, 6 feet.

Other scansions have been suggested, all of which involve, ignoring the foot divisions, MUSing on the LAMP.

How would you scan the line? Is it preferable to understand the line as containing an extra foot or as containing multiple substitutions and three consecutive unstressed syllables?

More generally, is traditional scansion useful for a line like this one?

I'm also interested to know how you read this, Dr. Steele (or Timothy if I may). It is followed by a pentameter line, and I read it with five beats. But scanning it as pentameter produces a line made up almost entirely of substitutions. I can deal with three unaccented syllables together more easily than I can deal with an extra foot.

Carol

Don't we have to treat it as hexameter?
The only thing that could keep me from promoting 'on' would be the following argument:
1. This was written by Frost
2. Frost would never start pentameter with an alexandrine
3. This line will turn out to be an alexandrine if I promote 'on'.
Therefore I will not promote 'on', but will regard it as unstressed for the purposes of this line (though if it occurred in a shorter line or one by some unknown poet, I would promote it).

But can the scansion of a line be dependent on who wrote it?
And can the stress we place on a middle syllable depend upon how many feet we'll have by the end of the line?

I'd prefer to say that Frost begins with an alexandrine and look for reasons for that -- after all, we will still have to explain why he would write a line with three unstressed syllables in a row that consisted almost entirely of substitutions even if we save him from the charge of starting with an alexandrine.
Maybe the greater length of the line suggests the length or ponderousness of her musings?

--Chris

Dear Carol,

Your scansion is correct. The first line of the hired man poem is an iambic hexameter with an inverted first foot and a feminine ending.

Happily, Frost himself went on record on this matter, saying that, at some point after writing the poem, he was reading it and realized that line 1 had an extra foot.

I guess even the best lose count sometimes.

Best wishes,

Tim Steele

Tim, that clinches it that he didn't put in a hexameter line intentionally, so perhaps he actually heard five beats in his head when he wrote it, and only realized he had an extra foot when he later discovered the three consecutive unstressed syllables, which everybody knows are just not done. But are they ever done? Certainly we speak that way.

Carol

It's an odd thing, but some hexameters, a few,
sound like pentameters at first hearing. No
practiced poet who composed, say, a line like
"Suddenly I saw the cold and rook-delighting
heaven" would fail to realize that it's a hex-
ameter, but if memory serves, I didn't immediately
catch Frost's opening line as one (although it
didn't take long). (I know I've written quite a
few which were meant to be pentameters.) Later on
in Frost's great poem, there's another hexameter
even less audible than the first line; I knew the
poem by heart for years before it hit me that
"Harold's associated in his mind with Latin" is
a hexameter. (I know that Frost consciously used
occasional six-beat and four-beat lines in his
blank verse, but I wonder if he heard that one.)



[This message has been edited by robert mezey (edited July 07, 2001).]

"I know that Frost consciously used occasional six-beat and four-beat lines in his blank verse, but I wonder if he heard that one." Thank you for that remark, Robert!

I for one believe that poets should feel free to take such liberties without running into a ton of criticism and peer pressure. In the poem I posted about the tree, there was a 6-foot line which sounded more right to me than any of the 5-foot variants I came up with -- indeed, when I shortened the line to 5 feet, it sounded too short. I ended up posting the poem with a 5-foot line because the idea of a long line bothered me, and also because I wanted to avoid the inevitable criticism.

Since this is my first visit to the "Lariat" board since Dr. Steele's arrival, first I must say "Welcome!" It's an honor to have you here.

You have stepped into a continuing debate that may get a bit testy at times. The participants (including me) often bring a surprising amount of passion to the discussion of these arcane matters.

I have a word for Caleb at this point. You appear to be saying that miscounting is a virtue to be cultivated. But Dr. Steele indicates that Frost felt startled when he realized what he had done. He had not intended it. Perhaps Frost would not have contrived the line in this fashion if he had thought more carefully at the outset. I continue to believe you are seeking excuses for laxity.

Alan Sullivan

Alan, my post makes it clear that I wasn't talking about miscounting. In this particular instance, Frost miscounted, but that doesn't mean that all of his long and short lines were miscounts. Presumably, a good poet will not use a long or short line unless he is attempting to achieve an effect, or unless it sounds good to him.

This is an interesting and enlightening discussion . . . and I'd like to put in my two-cents worth as a newbie, if nobody minds.

When Carol said that Frost "...discovered the three consecutive unstressed syllables, which everybody knows are just not done." and asked "But are they ever done?", I remembered another line by Frost, himself, wherein he used three consecutive unstressed syllables, viz:

and THAT/was my LONG/SCYTHE WHIS/-per-ing to/the GROUND

And, despite Mr. Frost going on record to say that he eventually realized he had an extra foot in that "Mary sat musing" line, I find myself agreeing with Carol when she says that "...perhaps he actually heard five beats in his head when he wrote it,..."

As I hear that "Mary" line--and see the image of that lamp-flame (perhaps with my own burnt-out lightbulb!)--I imagine that flame flickering, flaring up, dying down, and flaring up again in much the same way that the line does; and I still think that first line is pentameter, reading it as follows: trochee, spondee, tribrach [OR amphibrach], spondee, anapest [with hypermetrical syllable]:

MAR-y/SAT MUS/-ing on the/LAMP-FLAME/at the TA(-ble)

All best,

Patricia

Frost himself said there were only two meters in English: strict iambic and loose iambic, by which he meant anapestic substitutions, and I think that makes any scansion of Frost using the more unusual feet suspect. Disregrading elision, I'd scan "Mowing" like this:

MOWING

There was NEV | er a SOUND | beSIDE | the WOOD | but ONE,
And THAT | was my LONG | scythe WHIS | pering TO |the GROUND.
What was IT | it WHIS | pered? i KNEW | not WELL | mySELF;
PerHAPS | it was SOME | thing aBOUT | the HEAT | of the SUN,
SOMEthing, | perHAPS,| aBOUT | the LACK | of SOUND--
And THAT | was WHY | it WHIS | pered and DID | not SPEAK.
It WAS | no DREAM | of the GIFT | of ID | le HOurs,
Or EAS |y GOLD | at the HAND | of FAY | or ELF:
ANy | thing MORE | than the TRUTH | would have SEEMED | too WEAK
To the EAR | nest LOVE that LAID the SWALE in ROWS,
NOT with | out FEE | ble-POINT | ed SPIKES | of FLOWers
(Pale ORCH | isES),| and SCARED | a BRIGHT | green SNAKE.
The FACT | is the SWEET | est DREAM | that LA | bour KNOWS.
My LONG | scythe WHIS | pered and LEFT | the HAY | to MAKE.


Now, about that elision that I disregarded. There's an essay by Richard Moore (available on the web at http://home.earthlink.net/~arthur505/cult0397.html ) in which he claims that eleven of the fourteen lines of "Mowing" have only one anapest or none at all. If he's right, that suggests at least 3 elisions, since I've got 6 lines above with two anapests (lines 1-4, 9, and 14). Two candidates: "WHISPering" in line 2 can easily be pronounced "WHISPring," and "what was IT" in line 3 might be said "what WAS'T." But what are the others? Or is Moore just wrong about that? Robert, Tim, anybody?


Caleb -- you might enjoy that essay. Consider this passage:
"If the contemporary effort to write strict iambic has so frequently resulted in rhythms that sound like that, [a bad example from Gorbuduc then the possibility should at least be considered that after four centuries strict iambic is indeed dead and ought to be replaced by something else. (The problem in part may be that the lines of the iambic / free verse controversy were first drawn in Whitman's time, when iambic had already lost much of its early music. In consequence, the verse of the metric conservatives, even to this day, partakes of a tradition, starting with Longfellow and Colonel Higginson, which, like A. E. Housman at his worst, valued excessive regularity and suggested to poets like William Carlos Williams the stultifying proprieties of Victorian times.)"

Pat, welcome to the board.

I would scan that line like this:

and THAT/was my LONG/SCYTHE WHIS/-per-ing TO/the GROUND

"to" can take just a whisper of emphasis, thus it must take the stress for the foot; otherwise, you have FOUR unstressed syllables in a row.

However, I do believe that both 3 unstressed and 3 stress syllables can exist in a row. For example, on another board I scanned "Hyla Brook". The 11th line reads like this:

of DEAD / LEAVES STUCK / to GETH / er BY / the HEAT

In actuality, I read the line like this:

of DEAD / LEAVES STUCK / to GETH er {pause} by the HEAT
(as if it had 4 feet)

That pause comes in the middle of a foot, and leaves a three-syllable phrase to complete the line. It is instances like this that make me feel that scansion is more of an art than a science, and that the English language can't be neatly pinned down by any metrical system.

Actually, the same thing can be done to that line from "Mowing":

and THAT/was my LONG/SCYTHE WHIS/-per-ing {pause} to the GROUND
(such a pause would be very brief)

The same kind of pause often occurs when you have an iamb and a trochee back to back:

da DUM / DUM da

This inevitably leads to the question of whether pauses can act as syllables in the meter, but I'm not ready to tackle THAT!

Mandolin, I think that too much is being made of elisions. A person who would write an article arguing that "Mowing" has only 2 anapests is not being consistent with what I think are Frost's obvious intentions. In his mature work, he frequently inserted anapests into his iambic pentameter -- it was a bona fide technique that he used to give his poetry a more mature, relaxed cadence. As I pointed out in another thread, "The Road Not Taken" has 9 syllables per line -- it is iambic tetrameter with one anapest per line.

I'll go and take a look at that article.




[This message has been edited by Caleb Murdock (edited July 08, 2001).]

Caleb, I must not have been clear. Moore said "Of the fourteen pentameters, eleven have only one anapest or none at all." So that's, at a minimum, 3 lines with more than one anapest, or at least 6 anapests plus the single anapests scattered in the other 11 lines.

My apologies -- I completely misunderstood!

This "Ask the Poet Lariat" thread has taken on a life of its own.

A note for Pat:
and THAT|was my LONG|SCYTHE WHIS|-per-ing TO|the GROUND.

A note for Mandolin:
What WAS|it it WHIS | pered? i KNEW | not WELL | mySELF;

These strike me as more likely.


A.S.

We're all of us trying to make science of an art, and it can't be done, although in my experience the man who's made the best go of it is our esteemed guest. Frost's concern was not mathematical precision but creating the "sound of sense," the music of common speech. Hence his glorious "loose iambics" which rock and sway with the rhythm of our working language. For many years I've gone to Key West and sat in the garden of the Heritage House beside the Frost cottage. There I always play his tapes on the little machine behind the bar, tapes made when I was two and three years old. I have that voice accurately printed on my memory, but I still wouldn't presume to offer a definitive scansion of "Mowing."

I am certainly more relaxed in my own metrical practice than is Tim Steele, but let me offer a word of advice to one and all. Don't try to experiment until you have mastered the rudiments of the strict iambic line. Otherwise you will commit what Carol aptly calls metrical blunders, rather than skillfully substitute.

I've got no quarrel with that, Alan, though to my ear, using the 4 level stress system, you don't quite get a spondee in the third foot of the first line, but a 3 on scythe and 4 on whis.

Tim Murphy -- I envy you those recordings.

I'm still interested to hear what Tim Steele has to say about elision in general, and it seems this poem might be a good starting place.

Moore was right: only lines 3, 4, and 9 have
more than one anapest---most of the other
apparent anapests are elidable. But it's
rather pointless to argue about how many
anapests in a poem which is loose iambic and
so freely permits extra syllables. But it
is iambic, and therefore the word
"scythe" in the second line, although as
strongly stressed as the two syllables on
either side, does not get a metrical
accent. (To that extent, scansion is a
science.)

Has anyone written such a variety of sonnets
as Frost? This loosely iambic one irregularly
rhymed for openers, and one in heroic couplets,
and one in terza rima, English and Italian of
course and many variations on both (even one that
begins in Italian and ends in English), and some
in rhyme schemes of his own devising, and a couple
that look and sound like sonnets but turn out to
have 13 lines or 15 lines (one 15-liner in blank
verse and one in Catullus' hendecasyllable), one in
strict tetrameter and one in loose tetrameter with
two dimeters, and no doubt others I've forgotten.

Dear Caleb and Alan,

It's nice to see you two agreeing on how to scan the second line of Frost's Mowing; but, although you both read the 4th foot [in that 2nd line] as an anapest, I'm gonna sorta stick to my guns about it being a tribrach [for the sake of being ornery]. ;-}

Look at it this way: Have either of you ever cut your way through tall grass with a scythe or seen/heard somebody else doing so? Considering that a person swinging that scythe would be doing so in one smooth motion [swish!], if he were to pause long enough to put the slightest emphasis on the "to", he'd likely lose the rhythm of that swing . . . and, perhaps, cut his foot off at the ankle for good measure! [Sorry 'bout that!] ;-}

All best,

Patricia

For the record, I stand corrected by Robert Mezey, and I should not have shown "scythe" as fully stressed. It is very hard to avoid confusing newcomers with such things, and I was trying to evade the subject of secondary stress, which is now very much in play on a related discussion in "General Talk." I heartily support Dr. Steele's effort to win acceptance for a quaternary rather than binary system of scansion. General understanding of such a system would help clear up many of the confusions that arise in Manichean minds.

A question for Robert: I have prefered to indicate stress for all strong syllables when presenting binary scansion on this board. Do you really think this is a mistake? Your approach would highlight otherwise-hidden iambic patterns, but it would also induce newcomers to think that scansion imposes a false pattern of stress on normal pronunciation.

Alan Sullivan

Alan, a good question. My experience has been
that students have a hard time with using numbers
for scansion. What works best, I think, is the
notation I learned from Ransom, who took it from
George Stewart's very useful book and made some
changes for the classroom. The trouble is that
it's not easy, at least for me, to use in this
format. (Computers make some things much harder
and not easier.) Anyway, an iambic foot is
marked o S, but if the unaccented syllable is
as strongly stressed as the second syllable, or
almost, you would mark it O S---the O signifying
that it doesn't get a metrical accent but rivals
the accented syllable in duration, intensity,
pitch or whatever. And just so, in the case of
a very light accented syllable, you would mark
it o s. So that the Frost line would be scanned:

o S o o S O S o o s o S
And that was my long scythe whispering to the ground

(and I'll do it another way in case those marks
get moved) (---as they were)

.o.....S.....o....o....S......O.......S....o..o... s...o....S
And that was my long scythe whispering to the ground

As you can see, it's very simple. Of course, it
is still crude, as all systems are, but to my mind
less so than any of the others. And I keep the
terminology very simple too---no tribrachs or
amphimacers &c &c (which are classical feet in
any case and are never used in English verse,
except perhaps to describe phrasing, and they're
too clunky and unfamiliar to be of much use that
way). I think you can get along very well with
iamb, trochee, and the double foot,
the ionic. I suppose spondee (and
anapest) are useful terms. (I'd argue
that there's no such thing as a pyrrhic in
English verse.)


ps--I had to edit that line three times to get the
notation situated correctly over the syllables, so
unless there's some trick I'm ignorant of, it does
not work very well in this format. But you can
always use it by itself. For example, to indicate
the scansion of

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him

you'd follow the lines with
O/So/Sos/SooS
oSoSoSo/SoS(o)

--is that clear?















[This message has been edited by robert mezey (edited July 09, 2001).]