kborsden
Has a few recurring issues
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,973
- Reaction score
- 1,312
Exploring Formal Freedoms: Ictosyllabic vs. Ictothetic Metre
The first element of formal verse that most people (poets and enthusiasts) think of is metre, and most non-formalists will worry about consistency and the rigidity of it. However, while a high degree of recurrence and measure is expected, there are certain liberties that can be found in metre. First, before rhyme or any other additional device, there is line measure. This usually intends the syllabic numeration of each verse and is most commonly encountered in groups of 8 (octosyllabic) or 10 (decasyllabic) – despite the deliberate nature of line measure, it is commonly overlooked and prosodists and poets leap straight to metrical feet. Metrical feet are little more than internal measurements for beat numeration and named accordingly to that, but what if the employed feet disregard line measure, is that incorrect? The short answer is no. Using feet without line measure may cause irregularity to verse length, but can be very effective. There are many ballads and odes which are comprised from 7 metrical feet over 2 verses per 6, the exact feet varied. The longer answer can be addressed by looking at what constitutes a single verse and how that is complimented by its surrounding verses.
Ictothetic metre – this is a metrical format of fixed measured beats in ratio to measured off-beats as determined by placement within a line of poetry. The most commonly encountered is iambic pentameter. This metrical method creates a bounce or fluidity of speech by emphasis and may incorporate relief feet to fill out, vary, layer, or redefine established rhythms. It will generally lead into each following verse with a stress patter similar to how each ends and will (in most cases) always meet line measure. This metre is commonly referenced by its primary metrical foot.
Ictosyllabic metre – this is a metrical format of beats with a fixed syllabic location and number of off-beats between each pair of beats. This metre is referenced by the beats and not the off-beats (confusingly, the actual number of beats is +1 as the final stress of each reference is ignored in the naming), e.g. duple metre would be stress-unstress-stress in succession, triple metre would be stress-unstress-unstress-stress in succession. If we apply ictosyllabics to regular formal metrical theory, we could say that ictosyllabic duple metre is therefore strict trochaic meter as the stress pattern (regardless of the end-line unstressed syllable) continues on into the following verse. In this way, ictosyllabic metre forms a matrix of stressed and unstressed beats without relief or variation. This metre will regularly ignore line measure.
Catalexis – this is where the expected line measure falls short of one (common) or multiple (uncommon) syllables, in effect severing the final or first foot. Headlessness is the most frequently encountered form of catalexis, e.g. an iamb that does not have its initial unstressed syllable.
Hyper-Catalexis – similar to catalexis, but this is where the expected line measure is extended by an additional catalectic foot, i.e. an additional syllable that should be part of an additional foot. The most frequently encountered form of hyper-catalexis is taillessness, e.g. an iamb that does not have its final stressed syllable.
Going back to ictosyllabic metre and whether line measure can be correctly ignored in formal poetry and/or when considering metrical feet—a single ictosyllabic iambic pentametric verse would be in actuality a strict (not primary) line of 5 iambs where the first unstressed syllable is dropped (headless), ergo, a catalectic iambic pentametric verse of 9 syllables, or in effect an extended line of trochaic tetrameter (hyper-catalectic). Or, there is even the possibility to ignore the initial unstressed syllable and incorporate a tailless/headless iamb at the end of the line; this is still ictosyllabic as the first off-beat (and final off-beat if going tailless) is simply ignored by the format. In this way, we create a fusion of feet to create a new end-rhythm, e.g. iamb+headless iamb = bacchius; iamb+tailless iamb = amphibrach, while still over-arching (maybe even, meeting) the expected line measure.
While (hyper) catalexis is uncommon/rare in mature ictothetic metre, I see no reason why it can't be used for emphasis or even variation, especially if we consider the use of relief feet. This is an often used method of composing looser poetry for children, or for odes and ballads, and for light and/or comical verse. Why not extend to more defined verse? If feet are internal measures, then the line measure should (in being little more than a larger variant) also be viable for relief = relief verses,
.
Catalectic ictothetic metre is not ictosyllabic when relief feet are involved, however, but in seeing lines/verses as units that are viable to relieve metrical patterns, I also see no issue in alternating or diversifying between ictothetic and ictosyllabic constructs, nor in pushing it to varying the format at rest points such as caesura. All this becomes pointless if the rhythm jars because of it though.
Although this is a poem of uniformed verse length, it is an example of what I'm proposing.
Thoughts?
The first element of formal verse that most people (poets and enthusiasts) think of is metre, and most non-formalists will worry about consistency and the rigidity of it. However, while a high degree of recurrence and measure is expected, there are certain liberties that can be found in metre. First, before rhyme or any other additional device, there is line measure. This usually intends the syllabic numeration of each verse and is most commonly encountered in groups of 8 (octosyllabic) or 10 (decasyllabic) – despite the deliberate nature of line measure, it is commonly overlooked and prosodists and poets leap straight to metrical feet. Metrical feet are little more than internal measurements for beat numeration and named accordingly to that, but what if the employed feet disregard line measure, is that incorrect? The short answer is no. Using feet without line measure may cause irregularity to verse length, but can be very effective. There are many ballads and odes which are comprised from 7 metrical feet over 2 verses per 6, the exact feet varied. The longer answer can be addressed by looking at what constitutes a single verse and how that is complimented by its surrounding verses.
Ictothetic metre – this is a metrical format of fixed measured beats in ratio to measured off-beats as determined by placement within a line of poetry. The most commonly encountered is iambic pentameter. This metrical method creates a bounce or fluidity of speech by emphasis and may incorporate relief feet to fill out, vary, layer, or redefine established rhythms. It will generally lead into each following verse with a stress patter similar to how each ends and will (in most cases) always meet line measure. This metre is commonly referenced by its primary metrical foot.
Ictosyllabic metre – this is a metrical format of beats with a fixed syllabic location and number of off-beats between each pair of beats. This metre is referenced by the beats and not the off-beats (confusingly, the actual number of beats is +1 as the final stress of each reference is ignored in the naming), e.g. duple metre would be stress-unstress-stress in succession, triple metre would be stress-unstress-unstress-stress in succession. If we apply ictosyllabics to regular formal metrical theory, we could say that ictosyllabic duple metre is therefore strict trochaic meter as the stress pattern (regardless of the end-line unstressed syllable) continues on into the following verse. In this way, ictosyllabic metre forms a matrix of stressed and unstressed beats without relief or variation. This metre will regularly ignore line measure.
Catalexis – this is where the expected line measure falls short of one (common) or multiple (uncommon) syllables, in effect severing the final or first foot. Headlessness is the most frequently encountered form of catalexis, e.g. an iamb that does not have its initial unstressed syllable.
Hyper-Catalexis – similar to catalexis, but this is where the expected line measure is extended by an additional catalectic foot, i.e. an additional syllable that should be part of an additional foot. The most frequently encountered form of hyper-catalexis is taillessness, e.g. an iamb that does not have its final stressed syllable.
Going back to ictosyllabic metre and whether line measure can be correctly ignored in formal poetry and/or when considering metrical feet—a single ictosyllabic iambic pentametric verse would be in actuality a strict (not primary) line of 5 iambs where the first unstressed syllable is dropped (headless), ergo, a catalectic iambic pentametric verse of 9 syllables, or in effect an extended line of trochaic tetrameter (hyper-catalectic). Or, there is even the possibility to ignore the initial unstressed syllable and incorporate a tailless/headless iamb at the end of the line; this is still ictosyllabic as the first off-beat (and final off-beat if going tailless) is simply ignored by the format. In this way, we create a fusion of feet to create a new end-rhythm, e.g. iamb+headless iamb = bacchius; iamb+tailless iamb = amphibrach, while still over-arching (maybe even, meeting) the expected line measure.
While (hyper) catalexis is uncommon/rare in mature ictothetic metre, I see no reason why it can't be used for emphasis or even variation, especially if we consider the use of relief feet. This is an often used method of composing looser poetry for children, or for odes and ballads, and for light and/or comical verse. Why not extend to more defined verse? If feet are internal measures, then the line measure should (in being little more than a larger variant) also be viable for relief = relief verses,
. Catalectic ictothetic metre is not ictosyllabic when relief feet are involved, however, but in seeing lines/verses as units that are viable to relieve metrical patterns, I also see no issue in alternating or diversifying between ictothetic and ictosyllabic constructs, nor in pushing it to varying the format at rest points such as caesura. All this becomes pointless if the rhythm jars because of it though.
Although this is a poem of uniformed verse length, it is an example of what I'm proposing.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
