Theories of prosody
- Related Topics:
- scansion
- inversion
- dipody
- position
- equivalence
Ancient critics like Aristotle and Horace insisted that certain metres were natural to the specific poetic genres; thus, Aristotle (in the Poetics) noted, “Nature herself, as we have said, teaches the choice of the proper measure.” In epic verse the poet should use the heroic measure (dactylic hexameter) because this metre most effectively represents or imitates such qualities as grandeur, dignity, and high passion. Horace narrowed the theory of metrical decorum, making the choice of metre prescriptive; only an ill-bred and ignorant poet would treat comic material in metres appropriate to tragedy. Horace prepared the way for the legalisms of the Renaissance theorists who were quite willing to inform practicing poets that they used “feete without joyntes,” in the words of Roger Ascham, Queen Elizabeth’s tutor, and should use the quantitative metres of Classical prosody.
The Middle Ages
During the Middle Ages little of importance was added to actual prosodic theory. In poetic practice, however, crucial developments were to have important ramifications for later theorists. From about the second half of the 6th century to the end of the 8th century, Latin verse was written that no longer observed the rules of quantity but was clearly structured on accentual and syllabic bases. This change was aided by the invention of the musical sequence; it became necessary to fit a musical phrase to a fixed number of syllables, and the older, highly complex system of quantitative prosody could not be adapted to simple melodies that must be sung in sequential patterns. In the musical sequence lies the origin of the modern lyric form.
The 9th-century hymn “Ave maris stella” is a striking instance of the change from quantitative to accentual syllabic prosody; each line contains three trochaic feet determined not by length of syllable but by syllabic intensity or stress:
Ave maris stella
Dei Mater alma
atque semper Virgo,
felix caeli porta.
Sumens illud Ave
Gabrielis ore,
funda nos in pace,
mutans Hevae nomen.
The rules of quantity have been disregarded or forgotten; rhyme and stanza and a strongly felt stress rhythm have taken their place. In the subsequent emergence of the European vernacular literatures, poetic forms follow the example of the later Latin hymns. The earliest art lyrics, those of the Provençal troubadours of the 12th and 13th centuries, show the most intricate and ingenious stanzaic forms. Similarly, the Goliardic songs of the Carmina Burana (13th century) reveal a rich variety of prosodic techniques; this “Spring-song” embodies varying lines of trochees and iambs and an ababcdccd rhyme scheme:
Ver redit optatum
Cum gaudio,
Flore decoratum
Purpureo;
Aves edunt cantus
Quam dulciter!
Revirescit nemus,
Cantus est amoenus
Totaliter.
The Renaissance
Renaissance prosodic theory had to face the fact of an accomplished poetry in the vernacular that was not written in metres determined by “rules” handed down from the practice of Homer and Virgil. Nevertheless, the classicizing theorists of the 16th century made a determined attempt to explain existing poetry by the rules of short and long and to draft “laws” by which modern verse might move in Classical metres. Roger Ascham, in The Scholemaster (1570), attacked “the Gothic…barbarous and rude Ryming” of the early Tudor poets. He admitted that Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, did passably well as a poet but complained that Surrey did not understand “perfite and trewe versifying”; that is, Surrey did not compose his English verses according to the principles of Latin and Greek quantitative prosody.
Ascham instigated a lengthy argument, continued by succeeding theorists and poets, on the nature of English prosody. Sir Philip Sidney, Gabriel Harvey, Edmund Spenser, and Thomas Campion all (to use Saintsbury’s phrase) committed whoredom with the enchantress of quantitative metric. While this hanky-panky had no adverse effect on poetry itself (English poets went on writing verses in syllable-stress, the prosody most suitable to the language), it produced misbegotten twins of confusion and discord, whose heirs, however named, are still apparent today. Thus, those who still talk about “long and short” (instead of stressed and unstressed), those who perpetuate a punitive prosodic legalism, and those who regard prosody as an account of what poets should have done and did not, trace their ancestry back to Elizabethan dalliance and illicit classicizing.
Although Renaissance prosodic theory produced scarcely anything of value to either literary criticism or poetic technique—indeed, it did not even develop a rational scheme for scanning existing poetry—it raised a number of important questions. What were the structural principles animating the metres of English verse? What were the aesthetic nature of prosody and the functions of metre? What were the connections between poetry and music? Was poetry an art of imitation (as Aristotle and all of the Neoclassical theorists had maintained), and was its sister art painting; or was poetry (as Romantic theory maintained) an art of expression, and prosody the element that produced (in Coleridge’s words) the sense of musical delight originating (in T.S. Eliot’s words) in the auditory imagination?