Nirodbaran

Correspondence with Sri Aurobindo

Second Series

2. Art and Literature

Iambics, Anapaests, Trochees

Trochees are perfectly admissible in an iambic line as a modulation specially in the first foot (not first fine), but also occasionally in the middle. In the last foot a  trochee is not admissible. Also these trochees must not be so arranged as to turn an iambic into a trochaic line.

My dear sir, this is an instance of importing one's own inferences instead of confining oneself to the plain meaning of the statement. First of all the rules concerning a mixed iambic-anapaestic cannot be the same as those that govern a pure iambic. Secondly what I objected to was the trochaic run of the line. Two trochees followed by a long syllable, not a single iamb or anapaest in the whole! How can there be an iambic or an iambic anapaestic without a single iamb or anapaest in 1. 7? The line as written could only scan either as trochaic, therefore not iambic line, or thus – u |: uu – |, that is a trochee followed by an anapaest. Here of course there is an anapaest, but the combination is impossible rhythmically because it involves three short syllables one after another – an unbearable collocation – one is obliged to put a minor stress on the “at” and that at once makes the trochaic line. In the iambic anapaestic line a trochee followed by an iamb can be allowed in the first foot; elsewhere it is to be admitted with caution so as not to disturb the rhythm.

What numbers do you mean? The rules are perfectly clear and intelligible, only of course you must know what are the accents and what modulations are or are not possible. That means that you must know something about the language, that is all.

I have given you however some rules for the modulations in iambic verse – they are not exhaustive. In modern  verse one can pepper an iambic line with anapaests. I have done so myself in the sonnets. But one must be very careful how one does it. This license is not for beginners.

22.12.1935