Greetings,

Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
unstressed and then another stressed syllable:

"Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus

My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
scansion sounds odd:

(a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID

I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
"Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:

(b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID

Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.

Thank you.

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> unstressed and then another stressed syllable:

No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
means "except."

> "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> And yet the menace of the years
> Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
>
> My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> scansion sounds odd:
>
> (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID

uninterpretable

> I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
>
> (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
>
> Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.

FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID

(here's your two unstressed)

This is the only possibility -- if you were saying the line in prose,
you would stress "shall" as repetitive emphasis. The meter can't
contradict the words' stress patterns.

No prosody gobbledygook! Poets do not think in terms of named
feet and named exceptions. Any more than Haydn, Mozart, and
Beethoven knew that they were were writing in "sonata form."

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:22:29 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> means "except."
> > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > And yet the menace of the years
> > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> >
> > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > scansion sounds odd:
> >
> > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
>
> uninterpretable
>
> > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> >
> > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> >
> > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
>
> FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
....

I more or less agree with that, but I'd say that "find" has secondary stress,
and lurking under your scansion is Metrist's (a), with "shall" having
extrametrical stress.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:48:46 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
>
> "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> And yet the menace of the years
> Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
>
> My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> scansion sounds odd:
>
> (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
>
> I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
>
> (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
....

Stresses and pauses are real things, but in my view foot boundaries
are not. In scanning iambic verse, I'd either leave them out or place
them to match the iambic basis as well as possible. So I'd write your
version as

FINDS and | SHALL find | ME un | a FRAID

(but see my reply to PTD).

When I was in college, I saw a method of scansion that would show
your analysis of stresses and pauses in that line like O oOoO ooO.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:03:33 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:22:29 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> > means "except."
> > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > >
> > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > scansion sounds odd:
> > >
> > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> >
> > uninterpretable
> >
> > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > >
> > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > >
> > > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> >
> > FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
> ...
>
> I more or less agree with that, but I'd say that "find" has secondary stress,

"me" also? (Oh, for small caps in ASCII!)

FINDS # and SHALL _find me_ # UNaFRAID

> and lurking under your scansion is Metrist's (a), with "shall" having
> extrametrical stress.

I'm put off that word because of its misuse by the McCarthy school
of phonological analysis ... (see e.g. Janet Watson's *Phonology and
Morphology of Arabic* [2002] in Oxford's orange "phonologies" series).

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 22:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
<metrist2021@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
>iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
>a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
>unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
>
>"Beyond this place of wrath and tears
>Looms but the Horror of the shade,
>And yet the menace of the years
>Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
>https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
>
>My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
>glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
>line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
>scansion sounds odd:
>
>(a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
>
>I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
>"Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
>quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
>stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
>
>(b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
>
>Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
>and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
>
>Thank you.

Five hundred years from now Henley's poem will still be quoted.

Your criticisms of the scanning will either have been eaten by the
worms or cremated as smoke unless, of course, you are mummified, and
then you could arrange some kind of display in your mausoleum whereby
your mandible moves up and down, and your personal recording voices
the objections you have stated in this post.

What me bonkers?

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:20:46 PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 22:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Greetings,
> >
> >Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> >iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> >a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> >unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> >
> >"Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> >Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> >And yet the menace of the years
> >Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> >https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> >
> >My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> >glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> >line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> >scansion sounds odd:
> >
> >(a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> >
> >I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> >"Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> >quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> >stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> >
> >(b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> >
> >Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> >and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> >
> >Thank you.
> Five hundred years from now Henley's poem will still be quoted.
>
> Your criticisms of the scanning will either have been eaten by the
> worms or cremated as smoke unless, of course, you are mummified, and
> then you could arrange some kind of display in your mausoleum whereby
> your mandible moves up and down, and your personal recording voices
> the objections you have stated in this post.
>
I think you may have misunderstood my intentions here,
which are not to criticize or object to the line Henly wrote,
but only to understand how it is best to be rendered on a
metrical reading. The line simply presents a metrical challenge.

Neither scansion (a) nor scansion (b) violates any metrical
conventions; however, there are no precedents of (b) within the
poem itself, whereas there are numerous precedents within the
poem of scansion (a). For example:

line 1: "OUT of | the NIGHT | that CO | vers ME"
line 2: "BLACK as | the PIT | from POLE | to POLE"
line 7: "UN der | the BLUD | geon INGS | of CHANCE"
line 10: "LOOMS but | the HORR | or OF | the SHADE"

Nevertheless, I think that scansion (b) works better with
line 12. It makes the line sound more beautiful. Thus, I sought
confirmation that the pattern I saw matched others' sense of
how the line ought to be read.

If scansion (b) matches Henley's intention, then it is the only line
containing a truncated first foot, and the only line containing an
anapestic foot. I am still absorbing the other replies; I do tend to believe
that "feet" exist and that prosodic analysis of metered poetry is worthwhile.

> What me bonkers?

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 18:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
<metrist2021@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:20:46?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 22:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
>> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Greetings,
>> >
>> >Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
>> >iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
>> >a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
>> >unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
>> >
>> >"Beyond this place of wrath and tears
>> >Looms but the Horror of the shade,
>> >And yet the menace of the years
>> >Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
>> >https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
>> >
>> >My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
>> >glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
>> >line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
>> >scansion sounds odd:
>> >
>> >(a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
>> >
>> >I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
>> >"Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
>> >quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
>> >stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
>> >
>> >(b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
>> >
>> >Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
>> >and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
>> >
>> >Thank you.
>> Five hundred years from now Henley's poem will still be quoted.
>>
>> Your criticisms of the scanning will either have been eaten by the
>> worms or cremated as smoke unless, of course, you are mummified, and
>> then you could arrange some kind of display in your mausoleum whereby
>> your mandible moves up and down, and your personal recording voices
>> the objections you have stated in this post.
>>
>I think you may have misunderstood my intentions here,
>which are not to criticize or object to the line Henly wrote,
>but only to understand how it is best to be rendered on a
>metrical reading. The line simply presents a metrical challenge.
>
>Neither scansion (a) nor scansion (b) violates any metrical
>conventions; however, there are no precedents of (b) within the
>poem itself, whereas there are numerous precedents within the
>poem of scansion (a). For example:
>
>line 1: "OUT of | the NIGHT | that CO | vers ME"
>line 2: "BLACK as | the PIT | from POLE | to POLE"
>line 7: "UN der | the BLUD | geon INGS | of CHANCE"
>line 10: "LOOMS but | the HORR | or OF | the SHADE"
>
>Nevertheless, I think that scansion (b) works better with
>line 12. It makes the line sound more beautiful. Thus, I sought
>confirmation that the pattern I saw matched others' sense of
>how the line ought to be read.
>
>If scansion (b) matches Henley's intention, then it is the only line
>containing a truncated first foot, and the only line containing an
>anapestic foot. I am still absorbing the other replies; I do tend to believe
>that "feet" exist and that prosodic analysis of metered poetry is worthwhile.
>
>> What me bonkers?

Yeah, I don't want to sound disrespectful to you, but my answer would
be the same. It doesn't matter. The poem has made its mark and will
be quoted for centuries to come. Your criticisms will not.

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:14:56 PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 18:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:20:46?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 22:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
> >> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Greetings,
> >> >
> >> >Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> >> >iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> >> >a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> >> >unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> >> >
> >> >"Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> >> >Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> >> >And yet the menace of the years
> >> >Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> >> >https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> >> >
> >> >My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> >> >glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> >> >line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> >> >scansion sounds odd:
> >> >
> >> >(a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> >> >
> >> >I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> >> >"Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> >> >quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> >> >stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> >> >
> >> >(b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> >> >
> >> >Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> >> >and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> >> >
> >> >Thank you.
> >> Five hundred years from now Henley's poem will still be quoted.
> >>
> >> Your criticisms of the scanning will either have been eaten by the
> >> worms or cremated as smoke unless, of course, you are mummified, and
> >> then you could arrange some kind of display in your mausoleum whereby
> >> your mandible moves up and down, and your personal recording voices
> >> the objections you have stated in this post.
> >>
> >I think you may have misunderstood my intentions here,
> >which are not to criticize or object to the line Henly wrote,
> >but only to understand how it is best to be rendered on a
> >metrical reading. The line simply presents a metrical challenge.
> >
> >Neither scansion (a) nor scansion (b) violates any metrical
> >conventions; however, there are no precedents of (b) within the
> >poem itself, whereas there are numerous precedents within the
> >poem of scansion (a). For example:
> >
> >line 1: "OUT of | the NIGHT | that CO | vers ME"
> >line 2: "BLACK as | the PIT | from POLE | to POLE"
> >line 7: "UN der | the BLUD | geon INGS | of CHANCE"
> >line 10: "LOOMS but | the HORR | or OF | the SHADE"
> >
> >Nevertheless, I think that scansion (b) works better with
> >line 12. It makes the line sound more beautiful. Thus, I sought
> >confirmation that the pattern I saw matched others' sense of
> >how the line ought to be read.
> >
> >If scansion (b) matches Henley's intention, then it is the only line
> >containing a truncated first foot, and the only line containing an
> >anapestic foot. I am still absorbing the other replies; I do tend to believe
> >that "feet" exist and that prosodic analysis of metered poetry is worthwhile.
> >
> >> What me bonkers?
> Yeah, I don't want to sound disrespectful to you, but my answer would
> be the same. It doesn't matter. The poem has made its mark and will
> be quoted for centuries to come. Your criticisms will not.

Again, they are _not_ criticisms. I am trying to enhance my appreciation of the poem
by understanding how the rhythm of its twelfth line was intended to be rendered.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
<metrist2021@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:14:56?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 18:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
>> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:20:46?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 22:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
>> >> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Greetings,
>> >> >
>> >> >Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
>> >> >iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
>> >> >a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
>> >> >unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Beyond this place of wrath and tears
>> >> >Looms but the Horror of the shade,
>> >> >And yet the menace of the years
>> >> >Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
>> >> >https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
>> >> >
>> >> >My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
>> >> >glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
>> >> >line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
>> >> >scansion sounds odd:
>> >> >
>> >> >(a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
>> >> >
>> >> >I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
>> >> >"Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
>> >> >quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
>> >> >stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
>> >> >
>> >> >(b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
>> >> >and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you.
>> >> Five hundred years from now Henley's poem will still be quoted.
>> >>
>> >> Your criticisms of the scanning will either have been eaten by the
>> >> worms or cremated as smoke unless, of course, you are mummified, and
>> >> then you could arrange some kind of display in your mausoleum whereby
>> >> your mandible moves up and down, and your personal recording voices
>> >> the objections you have stated in this post.
>> >>
>> >I think you may have misunderstood my intentions here,
>> >which are not to criticize or object to the line Henly wrote,
>> >but only to understand how it is best to be rendered on a
>> >metrical reading. The line simply presents a metrical challenge.
>> >
>> >Neither scansion (a) nor scansion (b) violates any metrical
>> >conventions; however, there are no precedents of (b) within the
>> >poem itself, whereas there are numerous precedents within the
>> >poem of scansion (a). For example:
>> >
>> >line 1: "OUT of | the NIGHT | that CO | vers ME"
>> >line 2: "BLACK as | the PIT | from POLE | to POLE"
>> >line 7: "UN der | the BLUD | geon INGS | of CHANCE"
>> >line 10: "LOOMS but | the HORR | or OF | the SHADE"
>> >
>> >Nevertheless, I think that scansion (b) works better with
>> >line 12. It makes the line sound more beautiful. Thus, I sought
>> >confirmation that the pattern I saw matched others' sense of
>> >how the line ought to be read.
>> >
>> >If scansion (b) matches Henley's intention, then it is the only line
>> >containing a truncated first foot, and the only line containing an
>> >anapestic foot. I am still absorbing the other replies; I do tend to believe
>> >that "feet" exist and that prosodic analysis of metered poetry is worthwhile.
>> >
>> >> What me bonkers?
>> Yeah, I don't want to sound disrespectful to you, but my answer would
>> be the same. It doesn't matter. The poem has made its mark and will
>> be quoted for centuries to come. Your criticisms will not.
>
>Again, they are _not_ criticisms. I am trying to enhance my appreciation of the poem
>by understanding how the rhythm of its twelfth line was intended to be rendered.

What is the best definition of criticism?

1. the act of making judgments; analysis of qualities and evaluation
of comparative worth; esp., the critical consideration and judgment of
literary or artistic work. 2. a comment, review, article, etc.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/criticism#:~:text=noun-,1.,%2C%20review%2C%20article%2C%20etc

"The analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or
artistic work."

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:14:56?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 18:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
> >> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:20:46?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> >> >> Five hundred years from now Henley's poem will still be quoted.
> >> >> Your criticisms of the scanning will either have been eaten by the
> >> >> worms or cremated as smoke unless, of course, you are mummified, and
> >> >> then you could arrange some kind of display in your mausoleum whereby
> >> >> your mandible moves up and down, and your personal recording voices
> >> >> the objections you have stated in this post.
> >> >I think you may have misunderstood my intentions here,
> >> >which are not to criticize or object to the line Henly wrote,
> >> >but only to understand how it is best to be rendered on a
> >> >metrical reading. The line simply presents a metrical challenge.
> >> >Neither scansion (a) nor scansion (b) violates any metrical
> >> >conventions; however, there are no precedents of (b) within the
> >> >poem itself, whereas there are numerous precedents within the
> >> >poem of scansion (a). For example:
> >> >line 1: "OUT of | the NIGHT | that CO | vers ME"
> >> >line 2: "BLACK as | the PIT | from POLE | to POLE"
> >> >line 7: "UN der | the BLUD | geon INGS | of CHANCE"
> >> >line 10: "LOOMS but | the HORR | or OF | the SHADE"
> >> >Nevertheless, I think that scansion (b) works better with
> >> >line 12. It makes the line sound more beautiful. Thus, I sought
> >> >confirmation that the pattern I saw matched others' sense of
> >> >how the line ought to be read.
> >> >If scansion (b) matches Henley's intention, then it is the only line
> >> >containing a truncated first foot, and the only line containing an
> >> >anapestic foot. I am still absorbing the other replies; I do tend to believe
> >> >that "feet" exist and that prosodic analysis of metered poetry is worthwhile.
> >> >> What me bonkers?
> >> Yeah, I don't want to sound disrespectful to you, but my answer would
> >> be the same. It doesn't matter. The poem has made its mark and will
> >> be quoted for centuries to come. Your criticisms will not.
> >Again, they are _not_ criticisms. I am trying to enhance my appreciation of the poem
> >by understanding how the rhythm of its twelfth line was intended to be rendered.
>
> What is the best definition of criticism?

I think the more apposite word would have been "critique."

> 1. the act of making judgments; analysis of qualities and evaluation
> of comparative worth; esp., the critical consideration and judgment of
> literary or artistic work. 2. a comment, review, article, etc.
>
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/criticism#:~:text=noun-,1.,%2C%20review%2C%20article%2C%20etc
>
> "The analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or
> artistic work."
>
> https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 09:23:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<petertdaniels@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:45:54?AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
>> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:14:56?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 18:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
>> >> <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:20:46?PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>> >> >> Five hundred years from now Henley's poem will still be quoted.
>> >> >> Your criticisms of the scanning will either have been eaten by the
>> >> >> worms or cremated as smoke unless, of course, you are mummified, and
>> >> >> then you could arrange some kind of display in your mausoleum whereby
>> >> >> your mandible moves up and down, and your personal recording voices
>> >> >> the objections you have stated in this post.
>> >> >I think you may have misunderstood my intentions here,
>> >> >which are not to criticize or object to the line Henly wrote,
>> >> >but only to understand how it is best to be rendered on a
>> >> >metrical reading. The line simply presents a metrical challenge.
>> >> >Neither scansion (a) nor scansion (b) violates any metrical
>> >> >conventions; however, there are no precedents of (b) within the
>> >> >poem itself, whereas there are numerous precedents within the
>> >> >poem of scansion (a). For example:
>> >> >line 1: "OUT of | the NIGHT | that CO | vers ME"
>> >> >line 2: "BLACK as | the PIT | from POLE | to POLE"
>> >> >line 7: "UN der | the BLUD | geon INGS | of CHANCE"
>> >> >line 10: "LOOMS but | the HORR | or OF | the SHADE"
>> >> >Nevertheless, I think that scansion (b) works better with
>> >> >line 12. It makes the line sound more beautiful. Thus, I sought
>> >> >confirmation that the pattern I saw matched others' sense of
>> >> >how the line ought to be read.
>> >> >If scansion (b) matches Henley's intention, then it is the only line
>> >> >containing a truncated first foot, and the only line containing an
>> >> >anapestic foot. I am still absorbing the other replies; I do tend to believe
>> >> >that "feet" exist and that prosodic analysis of metered poetry is worthwhile.
>> >> >> What me bonkers?
>> >> Yeah, I don't want to sound disrespectful to you, but my answer would
>> >> be the same. It doesn't matter. The poem has made its mark and will
>> >> be quoted for centuries to come. Your criticisms will not.
>> >Again, they are _not_ criticisms. I am trying to enhance my appreciation of the poem
>> >by understanding how the rhythm of its twelfth line was intended to be rendered.
>>
>> What is the best definition of criticism?
>
>I think the more apposite word would have been "critique."

More of an "evaluation" don't you think? I really don't give two
hoots, but I read the OP's original post as a criticism or questioning
of the poems scansion and rhythm. If that was not his intention, then
my apologies to the OP.

>> 1. the act of making judgments; analysis of qualities and evaluation
>> of comparative worth; esp., the critical consideration and judgment of
>> literary or artistic work. 2. a comment, review, article, etc.
>>
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/criticism#:~:text=noun-,1.,%2C%20review%2C%20article%2C%20etc
>>
>> "The analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or
>> artistic work."
>>
>> https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:27:23 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 09:23:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:45:54?AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021

> >> >Again, they are _not_ criticisms. I am trying to enhance my appreciation of the poem
> >> >by understanding how the rhythm of its twelfth line was intended to be rendered.
> >> What is the best definition of criticism?
> >I think the more apposite word would have been "critique."
>
> More of an "evaluation" don't you think? I really don't give two
> hoots, but I read the OP's original post as a criticism or questioning
> of the poems scansion and rhythm. If that was not his intention, then
> my apologies to the OP.

Maybe you haven't been tuning in to Metrist's occasional threads
about classic poems.

Plus, they've just had a baby.

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:59:30 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:27:23 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 09:23:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:45:54?AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Metrist2021
> > >> >Again, they are _not_ criticisms. I am trying to enhance my appreciation of the poem
> > >> >by understanding how the rhythm of its twelfth line was intended to be rendered.
> > >> What is the best definition of criticism?
> > >I think the more apposite word would have been "critique."
> >
> > More of an "evaluation" don't you think? I really don't give two
> > hoots, but I read the OP's original post as a criticism or questioning
> > of the poems scansion and rhythm.

It was an inquiry into, not a criticism or questioning of, the poem's scansion or
rhythm in one of its lines, a line which I think sounds more beautiful with the rhythmic
pattern I proposed than with the one which is clearly exemplified in six lines of the poem.

If that was not his intention, then
> > my apologies to the OP.
> Maybe you haven't been tuning in to Metrist's occasional threads
> about classic poems.
>
> Plus, they've just had a baby.

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:22:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> means "except."
> > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > And yet the menace of the years
> > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> >
> > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > scansion sounds odd:
> >
> > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> uninterpretable
> > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> >
> > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> >
> > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
>
> (here's your two unstressed)
>

Thank you, Peter. Does the "#" signal a meterical pause,
perhaps a metrical pause one syllable in length? If so, I think
that your scansion (or scansion-like non-scansion) can almost be
merged with mine in this way, if you can part with stress on "UN."

c) FINDS # | and SHALL | find ME || un a FRAID

Here we have the same stress pattern in the first foot as there
is in the first line ("Out of the night . . ."), except that there is a
rest or pause on the second syllable of the first foot -- if, that is,
you believe in the existence of "feet." :-)

Note that I hear a caesura ("II") before the final foot, which I fancy
to be an anapestic substition.

> This is the only possibility -- if you were saying the line in prose,
> you would stress "shall" as repetitive emphasis. The meter can't
> contradict the words' stress patterns.
>
> No prosody gobbledygook! Poets do not think in terms of named
> feet and named exceptions. Any more than Haydn, Mozart, and
> Beethoven knew that they were were writing in "sonata form."

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:22:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:

> > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> > means "except."
> > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > scansion sounds odd:
> > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> > uninterpretable
> > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> > FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
> > (here's your two unstressed)
>
> Thank you, Peter. Does the "#" signal a meterical pause,
> perhaps a metrical pause one syllable in length? If so, I think
> that your scansion (or scansion-like non-scansion) can almost be
> merged with mine in this way, if you can part with stress on "UN."

Standard notation for a space. I don't know what "metrical pause" is.

> c) FINDS # | and SHALL | find ME || un a FRAID
>
> Here we have the same stress pattern in the first foot as there
> is in the first line ("Out of the night . . ."), except that there is a
> rest or pause on the second syllable of the first foot -- if, that is,
> you believe in the existence of "feet." :-)
>
> Note that I hear a caesura ("II") before the final foot, which I fancy
> to be an anapestic substition.

(I don't do "feet.")

> > This is the only possibility -- if you were saying the line in prose,
> > you would stress "shall" as repetitive emphasis. The meter can't
> > contradict the words' stress patterns.
> >
> > No prosody gobbledygook! Poets do not think in terms of named
> > feet and named exceptions. Any more than Haydn, Mozart, and
> > Beethoven knew that they were were writing in "sonata form."

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:22:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
>
> > > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > > No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> > > means "except."
> > > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > > scansion sounds odd:
> > > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> > > uninterpretable
> > > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > > > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > > > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> > > FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
> > > (here's your two unstressed)
> >
> > Thank you, Peter. Does the "#" signal a meterical pause,
> > perhaps a metrical pause one syllable in length? If so, I think
> > that your scansion (or scansion-like non-scansion) can almost be
> > merged with mine in this way, if you can part with stress on "UN."
> Standard notation for a space. I don't know what "metrical pause" is.

A metrical pause is metered silence, analogous to a rest in music.
Consider the following example from _Mother Goose_. If the nursery
rhyme is in alternating lines of iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter,
there would appear to be metrical pauses where # subs for an unstressed syllable:
 
HARK | # HARK | the DOGS | do BARK
BEGG ars | are COM | ing to TOWN
SOME | in RAGS | # SOME | in JAGS
and SOME | in VEL | vet GOWNS

> > c) FINDS # | and SHALL | find ME || un a FRAID
> >
> > Here we have the same stress pattern in the first foot as there
> > is in the first line ("Out of the night . . ."), except that there is a
> > rest or pause on the second syllable of the first foot -- if, that is,
> > you believe in the existence of "feet." :-)
> >
> > Note that I hear a caesura ("II") before the final foot, which I fancy
> > to be an anapestic substition.
> (I don't do "feet.")

Do you do measures in music? One could equally dispute their ontological
status in music.

> > > This is the only possibility -- if you were saying the line in prose,
> > > you would stress "shall" as repetitive emphasis. The meter can't
> > > contradict the words' stress patterns.
> > >
> > > No prosody gobbledygook! Poets do not think in terms of named
> > > feet and named exceptions. Any more than Haydn, Mozart, and
> > > Beethoven knew that they were were writing in "sonata form."

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:16:56 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:22:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> >
> > > > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > > > No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> > > > means "except."
> > > > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > > > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > > > scansion sounds odd:
> > > > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> > > > uninterpretable
> > > > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > > > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > > > > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > > > > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> > > > FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
> > > > (here's your two unstressed)
> > >
> > > Thank you, Peter. Does the "#" signal a meterical pause,
> > > perhaps a metrical pause one syllable in length? If so, I think
> > > that your scansion (or scansion-like non-scansion) can almost be
> > > merged with mine in this way, if you can part with stress on "UN."
> > Standard notation for a space. I don't know what "metrical pause" is.
> A metrical pause is metered silence, analogous to a rest in music.
> Consider the following example from _Mother Goose_. If the nursery
> rhyme is in alternating lines of iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter,
> there would appear to be metrical pauses where # subs for an unstressed syllable:
>
> HARK | # HARK | the DOGS | do BARK
> BEGG ars | are COM | ing to TOWN
> SOME | in RAGS | # SOME | in JAGS
> and SOME | in VEL | vet GOWNS
> > > c) FINDS # | and SHALL | find ME || un a FRAID
> > >
> > > Here we have the same stress pattern in the first foot as there
> > > is in the first line ("Out of the night . . ."), except that there is a
> > > rest or pause on the second syllable of the first foot -- if, that is,
> > > you believe in the existence of "feet." :-)
> > >
> > > Note that I hear a caesura ("II") before the final foot, which I fancy
> > > to be an anapestic substition.
> > (I don't do "feet.")
> Do you do measures in music? One could equally dispute their ontological
> status in music.
....

I don't think so. A sequence of notes will be played differently if the bar
lines are in different places.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:16:56 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:22:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:

> > > > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > > > No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> > > > means "except."
> > > > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > > > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > > > scansion sounds odd:
> > > > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> > > > uninterpretable
> > > > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > > > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > > > > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > > > > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> > > > FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
> > > > (here's your two unstressed)
> > > Thank you, Peter. Does the "#" signal a meterical pause,
> > > perhaps a metrical pause one syllable in length? If so, I think
> > > that your scansion (or scansion-like non-scansion) can almost be
> > > merged with mine in this way, if you can part with stress on "UN."
> > Standard notation for a space. I don't know what "metrical pause" is.
>
> A metrical pause is metered silence, analogous to a rest in music.

Hmm. Shak. sometimes breaks one line of poetry among two or three
speakers. Still 10 syllables but clearly they aren't supposed to run them
together as if they were 5 bars of 2/4.

> Consider the following example from _Mother Goose_. If the nursery
> rhyme is in alternating lines of iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter,
> there would appear to be metrical pauses where # subs for an unstressed syllable:
>
> HARK | # HARK | the DOGS | do BARK
> BEGG ars | are COM | ing to TOWN
> SOME | in RAGS | # SOME | in JAGS
> and SOME | in VEL | vet GOWNS

That's (just) a consequence of English being a stress-timed
language rather than a syllable-timed language.

A long time ago, I explained the difference to a friend of mine
who was the music director of a Catholic church in Chicago,
who used many Gregorian chants but with the text translated
into English heightened-prose. There was an immediate
improvement in the quality and intelligibility of his choir's
singing (all professional singers).

> > > c) FINDS # | and SHALL | find ME || un a FRAID
> > > Here we have the same stress pattern in the first foot as there
> > > is in the first line ("Out of the night . . ."), except that there is a
> > > rest or pause on the second syllable of the first foot -- if, that is,
> > > you believe in the existence of "feet." :-)
> > > Note that I hear a caesura ("II") before the final foot, which I fancy
> > > to be an anapestic substition.
> > (I don't do "feet.")
>
> Do you do measures in music? One could equally dispute their ontological
> status in music.

As I've noted before, Western Classical music, AFAICT, is the only
music that doesn't require an explicit rhythmic underlay ("beat").
(Of course it _allows_ it.)

I think you'd find that, in the setting of Lieder ("art songs"), whatever
"foot" lines you may draw don't necessarily correspond with the bar
lines of either the melody or the accompaniment.

My composer friend, who is also a concert pianist, was commissioned
by his conservatory (like many other alumni) to write a piece to commemorate
its centennial. As he's trying to learn to play it (he says it's very difficult),
the pianist in him keeps complaining about the composer in him who put
in so many time-changes, dropping in 5/4 bars all over the place etc. I
suggested that he simply take out the bar lines and use accent marks
on the ictuses (not unprecedented) and he considerd it (but probably
didn't, because the score had already been sent in).

> > > > This is the only possibility -- if you were saying the line in prose,
> > > > you would stress "shall" as repetitive emphasis. The meter can't
> > > > contradict the words' stress patterns.
> > > > No prosody gobbledygook! Poets do not think in terms of named
> > > > feet and named exceptions. Any more than Haydn, Mozart, and
> > > > Beethoven knew that they were were writing in "sonata form."

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:42:50 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:16:56 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:22:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > > > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > > > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > > > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > > > > No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> > > > > means "except."
> > > > > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > > > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > > > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > > > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > > > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > > > > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > > > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > > > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > > > > scansion sounds odd:
> > > > > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> > > > > uninterpretable
> > > > > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > > > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > > > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > > > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > > > > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > > > > > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > > > > > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> > > > > FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
> > > > > (here's your two unstressed)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Peter. Does the "#" signal a meterical pause,
> > > > perhaps a metrical pause one syllable in length? If so, I think
> > > > that your scansion (or scansion-like non-scansion) can almost be
> > > > merged with mine in this way, if you can part with stress on "UN."
> > > Standard notation for a space. I don't know what "metrical pause" is.
> > A metrical pause is metered silence, analogous to a rest in music.
> > Consider the following example from _Mother Goose_. If the nursery
> > rhyme is in alternating lines of iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter,
> > there would appear to be metrical pauses where # subs for an unstressed syllable:
> >
> > HARK | # HARK | the DOGS | do BARK
> > BEGG ars | are COM | ing to TOWN
> > SOME | in RAGS | # SOME | in JAGS
> > and SOME | in VEL | vet GOWNS
> > > > c) FINDS # | and SHALL | find ME || un a FRAID
> > > >
> > > > Here we have the same stress pattern in the first foot as there
> > > > is in the first line ("Out of the night . . ."), except that there is a
> > > > rest or pause on the second syllable of the first foot -- if, that is,
> > > > you believe in the existence of "feet." :-)
> > > >
> > > > Note that I hear a caesura ("II") before the final foot, which I fancy
> > > > to be an anapestic substition.
> > > (I don't do "feet.")
> > Do you do measures in music? One could equally dispute their ontological
> > status in music.
> ...
>
> I don't think so. A sequence of notes will be played differently if the bar
> lines are in different places.

It can be worse than that! The next time you hear "Glitter and Be Gay" (the
big number from Bernstein's *Candide*), try to hear the accompaniment.
It plays the _same_ coloratura melody as the singer is doing -- one beat off.

It's very hard to do and very easy to get wrong -- which is why I've had
disdain for Kristin Chenoweth ever since a broadcast concert performance
with the NYPO (which now wants to be called "the NY Phil") -- in which she
got it wrong.

(I saw *Wicked* in its first season -- 20 years ago, they're advertising --
and correctly predicted that the only Tony winner would be Idina Menzel.
I can't understand why it's still running.) (Menzel was the Bad Witch,
Chenoweth was the Good Witch.)

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:09:04 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:48:46 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> >
> > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > And yet the menace of the years
> > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> >
> > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > scansion sounds odd:
> >
> > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> >
> > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> >
> > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> ...
>
> Stresses and pauses are real things, but in my view foot boundaries
> are not.

Thank you for sharing your view about ostensible foot boundaries, Jerry,
and sorry for taking a while to reply. I was hoping I'd come up with
something really good to say in defense of the existence of foot boundaries,
but all I can really say is that I hope to have much more to say about that soon.

It is a question that I'd like to explore in depth, probably in multiple threads.
I have noticed that different metrists draw foot boundaries in different ways,
even for the selfsame lines of poetry, with the selfsame readings of stressed
and unstressed syllables.

I think that the question of the EXISTENCE of foot boundaries in metered
verse might perhaps be explored independently of the question of where the
foot boundaries should be placed, assuming they exist in the first place.

Regarding their existence, the argument that I know I have encountered in my
studies (I believe I encountered it in an essay of Thomas Cable's) is that feet
can be inferred from the principle of _relative stress differences_ in metrical lines.
He did not put the point formally, but I will (somewhat formally, anyway).

If syllable B is more stressed than syllable A to its immediate left, but B is much less
stressed than syllable D, two syllables to B's right, it does not follow that B is in
reality one of the unstressed syllables of the line; all that matters is that C is more  
stressed relative to the syllable to its immediate left, syllable C -- the other syllable in the "foot."

> In scanning iambic verse, I'd either leave them out or place
> them to match the iambic basis as well as possible. So I'd write your
> version as
> FINDS and | SHALL find | ME un | a FRAID
> (but see my reply to PTD).
>
> When I was in college, I saw a method of scansion that would show
> your analysis of stresses and pauses in that line like O oOoO ooO.
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:42:50 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:16:56 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:22:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:48:46 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > > > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > > > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > > > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > > > > No, "but" is stressed; it is not the conjunction, but the word that
> > > > > means "except."
> > > > > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > > > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > > > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > > > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > > > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > > > > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > > > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > > > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > > > > scansion sounds odd:
> > > > > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> > > > > uninterpretable
> > > > > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > > > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > > > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > > > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > > > > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > > > > > Do you think that works? Note that it has initial truncation (acephaly)
> > > > > > and an anapestic fourth foot, with "unafraid" having only one stress.
> > > > > FINDS # and SHALL find me UNaFRAID
> > > > > (here's your two unstressed)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Peter. Does the "#" signal a meterical pause,
> > > > perhaps a metrical pause one syllable in length? If so, I think
> > > > that your scansion (or scansion-like non-scansion) can almost be
> > > > merged with mine in this way, if you can part with stress on "UN."
> > > Standard notation for a space. I don't know what "metrical pause" is.
> > A metrical pause is metered silence, analogous to a rest in music.
> > Consider the following example from _Mother Goose_. If the nursery
> > rhyme is in alternating lines of iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter,
> > there would appear to be metrical pauses where # subs for an unstressed syllable:
> >
> > HARK | # HARK | the DOGS | do BARK
> > BEGG ars | are COM | ing to TOWN
> > SOME | in RAGS | # SOME | in JAGS
> > and SOME | in VEL | vet GOWNS
> > > > c) FINDS # | and SHALL | find ME || un a FRAID
> > > >
> > > > Here we have the same stress pattern in the first foot as there
> > > > is in the first line ("Out of the night . . ."), except that there is a
> > > > rest or pause on the second syllable of the first foot -- if, that is,
> > > > you believe in the existence of "feet." :-)
> > > >
> > > > Note that I hear a caesura ("II") before the final foot, which I fancy
> > > > to be an anapestic substition.
> > > (I don't do "feet.")
> > Do you do measures in music? One could equally dispute their ontological
> > status in music.
> ...
>
> I don't think so. A sequence of notes will be played differently if the bar
> lines are in different places.

Let's try to apply the idea that it makes no difference where we draw the
alleged foot boundaries in a metered line of verse. Consider the following
two lines from "The Old Oaken Bucket," by Samuel Woodworth:

"I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure,
The purest and sweetest that nature can yield."
http://holyjoe.org/poetry/woodworth.htm

Normally, I pronounce "exquisite" like this: "ex-QUI-site." However, because of
the word's placement in the line, I find myself inclined to think that the poet
intended it to be pronounced there in this manner: "EX-qui-site."

"EX" seems to me to be the stressed syllable of a foot in the line, no matter
where we draw the line. And wherever it is drawn, the other stressed and
unstressed syllables of the line will be slotted accordingly into their respective troughs,

won't they? : )

>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:36:56 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:42:50 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:16:56 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

[scansion]
> > > > (I don't do "feet.")
> > >
> > > Do you do measures in music? One could equally dispute their ontological
> > > status in music.
> > ...
> >
> > I don't think so. A sequence of notes will be played differently if the bar
> > lines are in different places.
>
> Let's try to apply the idea that it makes no difference where we draw the
> alleged foot boundaries in a metered line of verse. Consider the following
> two lines from "The Old Oaken Bucket," by Samuel Woodworth:
>
> "I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure,
> The purest and sweetest that nature can yield."
> http://holyjoe.org/poetry/woodworth.htm

Or from "The Masochism Tango", by Tom Lehrer.

"Your heart's hard as stone or mahogany.
That's why I'm in such exquisite ahgony."
> Normally, I pronounce "exquisite" like this: "ex-QUI-site." However, because of
> the word's placement in the line, I find myself inclined to think that the poet
> intended it to be pronounced there in this manner: "EX-qui-site."

Certainly. That's a minority pronunciation in the U.S., but not unknown. I've
heard it in speech.

> "EX" seems to me to be the stressed syllable of a foot in the line, no matter
> where we draw the line. And wherever it is drawn, the other stressed and
> unstressed syllables of the line will be slotted accordingly into their respective troughs,
>
> won't they? : )

Yes, but what does that have to do with where you place the foot boundaries?

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:26:15 AM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:09:04 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:48:46 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:

> > > Below is the third stanza of "Invictus," whose meter is clearly
> > > iambic tetrameter. The second line of the stanza begins with
> > > a standard variation, a stressed syllable being followed by two
> > > unstressed and then another stressed syllable:
> > > "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
> > > Looms but the Horror of the shade,
> > > And yet the menace of the years
> > > Finds and shall find me unafraid." (William Ernest Hendley)
> > > https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus
> > > My question concerns the fourth line of the stanza. At first
> > > glance, it appears to have the same initial variation as the first
> > > line of the stanza does. However, I think that the following
> > > scansion sounds odd:
> > > (a) FINDS and | shall FIND | me UN |a FRAID
> > > I dislike scansion (a) for two reasons. First, stressing "find" after
> > > "Finds" has already been stressed has an annoyingly redundant
> > > quality. Second, and more importantly, the sense seems to require
> > > stress on "shall." I should prefer scansion (b) below:
> > > (b) FINDS | and SHALL | find ME | un a FRAID
> > Stresses and pauses are real things, but in my view foot boundaries
> > are not.

> Thank you for sharing your view about ostensible foot boundaries, Jerry,
> and sorry for taking a while to reply. I was hoping I'd come up with
> something really good to say in defense of the existence of foot boundaries,
> but all I can really say is that I hope to have much more to say about that soon.
>
> It is a question that I'd like to explore in depth, probably in multiple threads.
> I have noticed that different metrists draw foot boundaries in different ways,
> even for the selfsame lines of poetry, with the selfsame readings of stressed
> and unstressed syllables.
>
> I think that the question of the EXISTENCE of foot boundaries in metered
> verse might perhaps be explored independently of the question of where the
> foot boundaries should be placed, assuming they exist in the first place.
>
> Regarding their existence, the argument that I know I have encountered in my
> studies (I believe I encountered it in an essay of Thomas Cable's) is that feet
> can be inferred from the principle of _relative stress differences_ in metrical lines.
> He did not put the point formally, but I will (somewhat formally, anyway)..
>
> If syllable B is more stressed than syllable A to its immediate left, but B is much less
> stressed than syllable D, two syllables to B's right, it does not follow that B is in
> reality one of the unstressed syllables of the line; all that matters is that C is more
> stressed relative to the syllable to its immediate left, syllable C -- the other syllable in the "foot."

I shall revert again to the long-ago lecture by MIT's Samuel Jay Keyser,
one of Chomsky's earliest adherents. Mostly he did syntax, but at one
point he tried a generative approach to prosody/scansion/ or whatever
you call what you do.

He gave a lecture at Chicago sponsored jointly by the Linguistics and
English Departments. He was exploring the underlying structures that
surfaced in poetry. It was perfectly clear to the linguists, who had been
reading Chomskyism for well over a decade by then, but the English
professors were utterly baffled.

(I don't know whether he published the lecture. He didn't do a book
on the topic.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Jay_Keyser

The last "recent" publication from his MIT web page might send you
to more general stuff (with Halle in 1998).

https://linguistics.mit.edu/user/keyser/

> > In scanning iambic verse, I'd either leave them out or place
> > them to match the iambic basis as well as possible. So I'd write your
> > version as
> > FINDS and | SHALL find | ME un | a FRAID
> > (but see my reply to PTD).
> >
> > When I was in college, I saw a method of scansion that would show
> > your analysis of stresses and pauses in that line like O oOoO ooO.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:11:14 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:36:56 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:42:50 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:16:56 PM UTC-6, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> [scansion]
> > > > > (I don't do "feet.")
> > > >
> > > > Do you do measures in music? One could equally dispute their ontological
> > > > status in music.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > I don't think so. A sequence of notes will be played differently if the bar
> > > lines are in different places.
> >
> > Let's try to apply the idea that it makes no difference where we draw the
> > alleged foot boundaries in a metered line of verse. Consider the following
> > two lines from "The Old Oaken Bucket," by Samuel Woodworth:
> >
> > "I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure,
> > The purest and sweetest that nature can yield."
> > http://holyjoe.org/poetry/woodworth.htm
> Or from "The Masochism Tango", by Tom Lehrer.
>

Nice! Thanks for the reference.

> "Your heart's hard as stone or mahogany.
> That's why I'm in such exquisite ahgony."
> > Normally, I pronounce "exquisite" like this: "ex-QUI-site." However, because of
> > the word's placement in the line, I find myself inclined to think that the poet
> > intended it to be pronounced there in this manner: "EX-qui-site."
> Certainly. That's a minority pronunciation in the U.S., but not unknown. I've
> heard it in speech.
> > "EX" seems to me to be the stressed syllable of a foot in the line, no matter
> > where we draw the line. And wherever it is drawn, the other stressed and
> > unstressed syllables of the line will be slotted accordingly into their respective troughs,
> >
> > won't they? : )
> Yes, but what does that have to do with where you place the foot boundaries?

My thought is that it is the perception of metrical feet which induces the
metrically sensitive reader to override his or her customary pronunciation
of "exquisite" (assuming he or she has the majority pronunciation) with the
minority pronunciation.

That is, without the perception of feet, the reader with the majority pronunciation
(ex-QUI-site) would not naturally say "EX-qui-site" there. I don't think it matters
where you place the boundaries, so long as a metrical pattern is preserved by
means of the boundaries.

i FOUND | it the SOURCE | of an EX | qui site PLEA sure
[i ] FOUND it the | SOURCE of an | EX qui site | PLEA sure
i FOUND it | the SOURCE of | an EX qui | site PLEA sure
(Note: I saw a reference to this poem in the Wikipedia article "Amphibrach.")

In each case, we make accommodations for the beginning and ending foot,
respectively. But in the middle feet, we can see, I think, that it doesn't really matter
whether we say the foot is ᴗᴗ ̸ (anapestic) or ̸ ᴗᴗ (dactylic) or ᴗ ̸ᴗ (amphibrachic);
the stressed and unstressed syllables will still come in a repeated unitary sequence.

What matters is that a foot be identified and stuck to, except in deliberate variations.
If feet didn't exist in the minds of metrically sensitive readers, there would be no perception
of a metrical pattern, at least not one with units; and without those units, our readings would
not be guided in cases like this, where pronunciation is reconfigured for meter's sake.
 
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman