Well...just to weigh in with my personal dogma - "loose iambics" involves more than one substitution per line, particularly if both subs consist of an extra syllable WITHIN the line.
This mostly applies to tetrameter and longer - shorter measures are inherently more forgiving.
An extra syllable at the end of a line is likely too innocuous to count...and an initial reversed foot is also too customary (and natural) to be very "loosening".
Two reversed feet - and perhaps even two anapestic substitutions - in some sort of parallel construction are probably OK also. eg:
Dance in a horse's hide. Dance in the snow.
(Weldon Kees - Farrago)
A "double iamb", "spondaic substitution" or whatever you want to call it (Minor Ionic?) isn't - strictly speaking - a substitution at all...the passage, in an iambic context, can nearly always reasonably scan as two successive iambs, or an iamb following a trochee. Try it...you'll see.
This is also WAY overrated (and over-used) as a source of rhythmic interest. Sounds prosey, really.
I just spent most of a year reading a whole passel of "Contemporaries of Shakespeare" BV dramas - as well as re-reading a fair amount of Shakin' Willie, himself.
The Elizabethians are all OK. Even Chapman and Jonson can escape being boring.
(BTW caesurae don't always mangle the rhythm:
Dost thou not feel me Rome? Not yet? Is night
So heavy 'pon thee, and my weight so light?
Jonson - Cataline)
The Carolines regained most of Shakespeare's smoothness, but without the lyric genius (Ford, Tourneur, Shirley)
(You want to learn how to enjamb on a blank IP line, read "The Atheist's Tragedy" Cyril Tourneur...although it's a ludicrously stupid drama, the verse is outstanding. Much the same for Ford's "Tis Pity She's a Whore"...and a better play.)
But the Jacobeans...Oh God, it's just sludge - even the much-overrated Webster.
(Webster, Massinger, Fletcher and Beaumont when he was writing with Fletcher. Middleton much of the time.)
Need a break afterwards? Dryden's "All For Love" is...well, sublime.
|
Threaded Mode
