 |
 |
It occurred to my after my last post that Prof. Wilson-Okamura may not have been thinking of Classical quantitative verse but the false renaissance attempt to imitate it by reliance on so-called 'position' a la Derek Attridge's study. I don't have his original post to clarify the point, so if I misunderstood him, my apologies. I am still, however, rather doubtful about any meter other than the dactylic hexameter. Renaissance poets with a reasonable grasp of the basis for quantitative metrics knew perfectly well that the hexameter contained a strict medial caesura dividing the line into two cola. The discipline of writing Latin hexameters or elegies (where the elegiac pentameter is clearly not foot-based) would surely have reinforced the tendency to view the verse as a composite of two cola. When they turned to crafting English hexameters with the penthemimeral or hephthemimeral caesura, I should think that the Latin example would have conditioned them to think in terms of two cola rather than six feet. The same could be said of iambic and trochaic meters, which were structured with metra (x-u- or -u-x respectively), not feet. If I'm right, the authors of faux-quantitative verse would not be counting but concentrating on the position of each longum in the verse and contriving how to make the English syllable 'long.' In the past I have discussed this at some length with Derek, and remain convinced that those poets with a solid knowledge of the languages could not have confused Classical versification or its English imitation with mere foot-counting.