Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Robert S Miola's avatar

Such apparently effortless mastery of sound echoing sense: the sibilance and unvoiced consonants in the SoFT STrain of the genTly blowing ZePHyr; the assonance, repetition,

and liquid consonants of the SMOOTH StReaM flowiNg in SMOOTHER NuMbeRs; the jump in volume and energy in the next two lines created by pile-ups in stresses (WHEN LOUD SURges LASH, HOARSE, ROUGH VERSE) and assonance lOUd, sOUnding); the enforced stop and start to voice “AjaX STrives” followed by the double spondee and syntactic inversion that make SOME ROCK’S VAST WEIGHT a boulder in the middle of the line; the two elisions and two extra syllables in the “Flies . . . main” line, which make the reader speed up (like Camilla) to get to the end rhyme in rhythm. No wonder Pope claimed to have “lisped in numbers.”

Expand full comment
Gemma Lynn Myers's avatar

When I was in my teens I read Alexander Pope with great delight. On many occasions he took me by surprise and made me start at his unexpected meaning or laugh out loud at his sarcastic shafts, thrown as if all the world but he were idiotic. But in none of my college classes did Pope get anything but a nod (no doubt to the rancour of his neglected soul), and I remember I was so surprised at this blatant omission. It seems, as far as I could ever gather an explanation, that Pope could not compete with the more approachable meaningfulness of the Romantic poets who came after him, and the sprezzatura and glamour of the Renaissance poets who were before him. Does anyone have any musings about this? I also wonder if today's generally smaller understanding of meter and poetic form lessons our modern appreciation of Pope and his triumphant marshalling of syllables and sounds. Thank you so much for serving up this except, Joseph and Sally!

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?