Russian Binary Meters Part Two. Chapters 5–6 Kiril Taranovsky* 1 Editors’ Note Part I of Russian Binary Meters, the English translation of Kiril Taranovsky’s classic study Ruski dvodelni ritmovi (Taranovsky 1953), appeared in volume 7.2 (2020) of Studia Metrica et Poetica (pp. 110–176). Part I bears the title (inad- vertently omitted from our translation) “Theoretical Bases for the Study of Russian Binary Meters”, and consists of the first four of the book’s nineteen sec- tions. Following are the first two sections of Part II (“Historical Development of the Rhythmic Drive of Russian Binary Meters”), devoted, respectively, to the trochaic and iambic tetrameter. The reader should bear in mind that the numbering of sections and footnotes is continuous with the earlier installment, beginning here with Section 5 and footnote 71. We have taken the liberty of reformatting Taranovsky’s Tables I–IV to make them more readable. The Tables are now split into three vertical parts: icti, word boundaries and rhyth- mic variations, with the icti and rhythmic variations placed side by side. (We are grateful to Mikhail Trunin, Vera Polilova and Artem Babushkin for edito- rial assistance.) The Historical Development of the Rhythmic Drive in Russian Binary Meters 5. The Four-foot Trochee The four-foot trochee is the most common trochaic meter in the Russian literary tradition. It is used in some of the longer genres – the fairy tale in verse (Žukovskij, Puškin, and others) and the ballad (Puškin’s “Besy” and “Utoplennik”). Most often it has rhymed masculine and feminine endings. * Translated by Walter N. Vickery and Lawrence E. Feinberg. Translator’ address: Lawrence Feinberg, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Germanic and Slavic Lan- guages, Dey Hall 426, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA, e-mail: lfeinber@email.unc.edu. Studia Metrica et Poetica 8.2, 2021, 110–199 https://doi.org/10.12697/smp.2021.8.2.06 https://doi.org/10.12697/smp.2021.8.2.06 111Russian Binary Meters. Part Two However, in the second half of the eighteenth century we also begin to find four-foot trochees employing exclusively the unrhymed dactylic endings which we normally associate with the byliny of folk poetry; and, naturally enough, it is in stylizations of oral folk epic poetry that the four-foot trochee is found with dactylic endings. Among other examples of this type of poetry we note Xeraskov’s Baxar’jana, Karamzin’s Il’ja Muromec, Vostokov’s Pevsilad i Zora, and Puškin’s Bova. Later, in Nekrasov, the four-foot trochee can be used with a combination of rhymed dactylic and masculine endings – here too in a poem which has stylistic affinities with folk poetry (Korobejniki). In the shorter lyric genres the thematic range of the four-foot trochee is far wider. It is used in hymns (e. g., Deržavin’s “Grom pobedy razdavajsja”), in elegies (e. g., Puškin’s “Dar naprasnyj, dar slučajnyj”), in humorous verse, and also in poetry for children. In lyric poetry dactylic endings serve a function similar to that observed above: they are employed in imitations of folk songs (eighteenth-century songs, later Kol’cov and Nikitin, and in the twentieth cen- tury Orešin, Kljuev and Esenin). The four-foot trochee entered the literary tradition in a less revolutionary fashion than did the iamb. The trochee was in some degree indebted to the tradition of the syllabic thirteen-syllable line which in Trediakovskij (1735) has assumed an almost completely pure trochaic character, based on the fol- lowing pattern: — ∪ | — ∪ | — ∪ | — || — ∪ | — ∪ | — ∪ , e.g.: Ne vozmóžno sérdcu, áx! // ne imét’ pečáli; Óči tákožde eščé // plákat’ ne prestáli: Drúga mílogo ves’má // ne mogú zabýti, Bez kotórogo tepér’ // nadležít mne býti. Here the first hemistich is, in fact, a four-foot trochee with a masculine end- ing (catalectic), and the second a three-foot trochee with a feminine ending (acatalectic). This meter remains productive in the Russian literary tradition. We find it in Sumarokov in exactly the same form as in Trediakovskij: Prósiš’ pésnju, čtob oná // žár moj iz”jasníla; Xóčeš’ védat’ ímja tój, // któ menjá pleníla; Já sej čás časóm dragím // nazyváti stánu, I ispólnju tvój prikáz: // tý dalá mne ránu. 112 Kiril Taranovsky But in Sumarokov we also find it separated into two lines: Já ne vlásten už v sebé, Tý vladéeš’ mnóju, Tý odná pokój daéš’, Ótnjat ón tobóju. Obviously there is nothing new in the arrangement of this last example – except to the eye. The odd lines still do not rhyme. Only when Sumarokov uses rhyme in the odd lines also, do these latter acquire greater independence: Négde v málen’kom leskú, Pri potákax réčki, Čto bežála po peskú, Stereglís’ ovéčki. Žukovskij did much to popularize this metrical pattern: Ráz v kreščénskij véčerok Dévuški gadáli: Za voróta bášmačok, Snjáv s nogí, brosáli... We find it again later in Nekrasov (“General Toptygin”) and in A. K. Tolstoj: Kolokól’čiki moí, Cvétiki stepnýe, Čtó gljadíte na menjá, Temnogolubýe? Thus, there can be no doubt that the four-foot trochee had its origin in Trediakovskij’s thirteen-syllable line. It is true that Trediakovskij permitted “the replacement of a trochee by an iamb” in some feet. Lines of the type: Ópicu, pridáv stixóv // ímja otcá, pérvu... Júnker, kotórogo v čést’ // já zdes’ nazyváju... are not to be found in the poets who followed him. However, the line: Tól’ velíkija v ženáx // monárxini Ánny... 113Russian Binary Meters. Part Two is not at all unusual even later. A complete analogy to it is found in Nekrasov: Pribežáli tój porój Jamščík i vožátyj... Here we are dealing with a displacement of the metrical ictus, which was discussed in Section 3. Genuine four-foot trochees with masculine and feminine rhymes, i.e. met- rically of the type that Russian writers use even today, are found in Russian literature for the first time in the translation of an ode by Fénelon which the student Lomonosov sent from Freiburg to the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1738.71 Lomonosov’s translation could not have had any influence because it remained forgotten among the papers of the Russian Academy. Only at the end of 1739 or the beginning of 1740, when Lomonosov sent the members of the Russian Assembly his famous “Pis’mo”72 and became the first to offer examples of the Russian iamb, did so-called “tonic” verse begin to appear in Russian poetry. Six lines only, in the four-foot trochaic meter, were sufficient in the “Pis’mo” to serve as an example, since the theoretical laws on which they were constructed were formulated precisely and clearly: Nímfy ókol nas krugámi Tancováli pojučí, Vspléskivajuči rukámi, Nášej ískrennoj ljubví Veseljásja privečáli, I cvetámi nas venčáli. Here we find regular four-foot trochees with feminine and masculine rhymes. Trediakovskij, who in 1735 had published a rather confused theory of Russian versification73 in which he showed himself to be a resolute opponent of pure iambic lines and masculine rhymes, greeted Lomonosov’s theory inimically. It is true that in his 1735 work Trediakovskij was already talking in terms of feet. But he had not given a single example of any “tonic” meter other than the thirteen-syllable trochaic line (with the caesura after the seventh syllable) and the eleven-syllable trochee (with the caesura after the fifth syllable). And thirteen-syllable and eleven-syllable lines were, of course, the most popular meters in syllabic poetry, though in the syllabic tradition they had not yet acquired an explicitly trochaic character.74 In any case, whatever his initial reactions, Trediakovskij eventually began to use all the meters introduced by Lomonosov. In 1752 Trediakovskij revised his theories, bringing them more into line with Lomonosov and attempting to show that it was he who had 114 Kiril Taranovsky introduced “tonic” versification into Russian poetry.75 We will not dwell here on this argument which has already been well documented.76 Verse practice is our chief concern. Lomonosov’s younger contemporary Sumarokov, who reputedly responded to Lomonosov’s theory with an epigram, began to write in regular iambs and trochees. In 1744 we find all three poets competing to see who can recast the one hundred and forty-third psalm in the purest tonic verse.77 While Sumarokov and Lomonosov use iambs, Trediakovskij prefers trochees with masculine and feminine rhymes: Krépkij, čúdnyj, beskonéčnyj, Póln xvalý, preslávnyj vés’, Bóže! Tý edín prevéčnyj, Sýj gospód’ včerá i dnés’... Thus, we can fairly say that in the course of the 1740s the syllabic verse tradi- tion comes to an end. The four-foot trochee has become popular in the work of Trediakovskij and Sumarokov; Lomonosov uses it very rarely78. But, on the other hand, he has established himself as the “true champion of the iamb.” The Russian four-foot trochee (in combination with three-foot trochees) not only continues the metrical tradition of Trediakovskij’s thirteen-syllable line. From the rhythmic standpoint also, it represents to some extent a devel- opment of the first hemistich of Trediakovskij’s thirteen-syllable line. This can be seen from the fact that in the Russian four-foot trochee (cf. Table I) the weak and the strong icti alternate, with the icti on the third and seventh syl- lables strong, while those on the first and the fifth are weak. The rhythmic line is therefore an undulating one. Its oscillation hinges on two strong points – the icti on the third and the seventh syllables. Exactly the same rhythmic drive is found in Trediakovskij’s 1735 thirteen-syllable line (“Pis’mo Apollinu” and two elegies)79: Syllables: 1 3 5 7 % of stresses: 66.1 80.4 55.0 100 Here too, as we note, the strong icti are on the third and seventh syllables, and the weak icti on the first and the fifth. It is hard to say whether this drive in Trediakovskij’s poetry developed from the syllabic thirteen-syllable line of his predecessors, since Russian poetry of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries has not yet been thoroughly studied from this point of view. The only available figures are those compiled by L. I. Timofeev: these give the 115Russian Binary Meters. Part Two stress percentages for the first hemistich in the thirteen-syllable line of Simeon Polockij, Trofimovič, Kantemir and Trediakovskij, and compare them with the corresponding percentages for Lomonosov’s and Puškin’s four-foot trochees: Year Poet Syllables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1700 Simeon Polockij 20.0 19.5 22.5 8.0 31.0 48.0 30.0 1728 Trofimovič 27.0 30.0 38.0 20.0 33.0 18.0 53.0 1736–40 Kantemir 34.0 40.0 70.0 24.0 50.0 8.0 77.0 1735 Trediakovskij 63.0 00.0 81.0. 00.0 55.0 00.0 100 1738 Lomonosov 80.0 00.0 82.0 00.0 65.0 00.0 100 19th C. Puškin 57.0 00.0 97.5 00.0 43.5 00.0 100 As the table shows, in Polockij’s verse the most stable is the sixth syllable, but in Trofimovič’s the stress percentages for the third and the seventh syllables are the highest, and in Kantemir and Trediakovskij the third and seventh syllables are clearly dominant, just as they are in the four-foot trochee. Up to Kantemir, the even syllables are stressed along with the odd. But in Kantemir the odd syllables attract a considerably larger number of stresses than before, thus producing, albeit as yet in embryonic form, a trochaic cadence with bipartite rhythmic structure. The increase, from Polockij to Kantemir, of stresses on the second and fourth syllables runs to some extent counter to a trochaic cadence, but this increase is abruptly halted in Trediakovskij, who has zero percent- ages for the second and fourth syllables.81 On the basis of Timofeev’s figures, one could draw the premature conclusion that the rhythmic drive of the first hemistich in Trediakovskij’s thirteen-syllable line is a development from Trofimovič and Kantemir, Trediakovskij merely accentuating already exist- ing tendencies. However, Timofeev is at fault in his “historical-progression” approach to Kantemir. In actual fact Kantemir is preceded by Trediakovskij whose trochaic rhythmic drive could have subsequently influenced Kantemir’s syllabic thirteen-syllable line. This leaves us only Trofimovič, and we therefore have totally insufficient grounds for drawing conclusions about the evolution of the syllabic thirteen-syllable line, particularly in view of the fact that the accuracy of Timofeev’s statistics has been questioned.82 This question requires a new and detailed examination which cannot be undertaken in the framework of the present study. There is other evidence which shows that in the first half of the eighteenth century a bipartite rhythmic structure developed in the eight-syllable line 116 Kiril Taranovsky (with strong icti on the third and seventh syllables) and gained currency in Russian poetry. In 1744 Kantemir, among other rules which he gives for the octosyllabic line, states the following: “Eight-syllable lines have no caesura, but one should take care that the third and the seventh syllables be long. An example: Skol’ko bédnyj suetítsja Čelovék za malu slávu. Noč’ ne spít, i den’ tomítsja, Čtob ne sél sosed poprávu, Čtob naród emu divílsja I xvostóm vsegda taščílsja; Znatno bédnyj zabyváet, Čto po smérti prax byváet”.83 These lines are no more nor less than pure four-foot trochees with bipartite rhythmic structure. We should not forget that in the literary tradition the four- foot trochee had only begun to appear at that time: consequently, Kantemir had very few models. We should, moreover, bear in mind that at that time Kantemir was in Paris and was, therefore, to a great extent separated from the literary life of Russia: one traveled from Russia to Paris by horse or at times on foot (e. g., Trediakovskij).84 Therefore, the fact that Kantemir clearly formu- lated the need for stressing the third and seventh syllables in the eight-syllable line is for us highly significant. Both the rhythmic character of the first hemistich of Kantemir’s and Trediakovskij’s thirteen-syllable line and Kantemir’s rule concerning the struc- ture of the “syllabic” eight-syllable line lead us to believe that the origin of the rhythmic drive of the Russian literary four-foot trochee must be sought in Russian verse prior to the introduction of German tonic metrics into Russian literature. We think that the answer to the question of the origin of that drive is to be found in Russian, and perhaps also in East Slavic, musical folklore. Many lyric folk songs have the first musical accent on the third syllable of the text, as is the case in the well-known song “Ax vy, seni, moi seni”: 117Russian Binary Meters. Part Two In Russian folk songs the lines are not isosyllabic. Nor are they in this song. However, when isosyllabism is present, as for example in the fifth and seventh stanzas of this song, a pure trochee results: 5. Ty letí, leti, sokólik, Vysokó i dalekó. I vysóko i dalëko, Na rodímu storonú. 7. Ne puskáet molodú Pozdno véčerom odnú. Ja ne slúšala otcá, Potešála molodcá.85 When the stanza consists of isosyllabic lines, we see that the musical accents fall on the third and the seventh syllables in the line. And this actually gives us, in its purest and most extreme form, the bipartite rhythmic structure of the four-foot trochee. Similarly, in the music accompanying Ukrainian eight-syllable lines (four plus four), we find the stronger beat on the third and seventh syllables. “The four-syllable group,” says Filjaret Kolessa, “corresponds most often to 2/4 time with an eighth note falling on each syllable: ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ | ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Oj po - ki ja bu - la ma - la Kolysala mene mama To v kolysci to v korobci, Teper mene ljubjat xlopci. The rhythm of the melody, emphasizing the first and the third syllables of each group by means of a strong beat, causes both the incorrect stressing of words (po-kí, má-la, méne, téper), and in longer words the appearance, in addition to the main stress, of other secondary stresses. Often both stresses are “incorrect”: Kórobóčka / torkotila, A ja spati / ne xotila. One can notice in singing that the beat of the third eighth is stronger than the first beat;86 often the two groups are linked by a two-syllable rhyme: 2 4 118 Kiril Taranovsky A v Marýsi / bili pýsi Jak ne vjýryš / podyvý si.87 “If the tetrasyllabic group,” continues Kolessa, “corresponds to 3/4 time, then the melody usually sets off (by means of a weak beat) the first syllable, and (by means of a strong beat) the third syllable of the group: ♪ ♪ À À | ♪ ♪ À À | ♪ ♪ À À | ♪ ♪ À À | oj pid ga- em ze- le- nen’kym bra-la vdo-va l’on drib-nen’kyj Similarly: Plive čóven / vodi póven.”88 Hence in the Ukrainian eight-syllable line the third and the seventh syllables are most often stressed. All we have said up to now indicates that further studies must take two directions. On the one hand, the stress in Russian syllabic verse before Trediakovskij must be studied, and, on the other hand, the stress in East Slavic folk poetry and its relationship to the melody. Particular attention should be given to the song books from the first half of the eighteenth century which, as is well known, contain not only imitations of the folk songs but also genuine folk songs. Obviously these questions are outside the scope of the present study. However, even the limited materials here collected indicate quite clearly that the drive of the Russian literary four-foot trochee must have developed under the influence of folk poetry. It could be suggested that this bipartite structure with strong icti on the third and seventh syllables is characteristic of trochaic eight-syllable lines in general. This is, however, not the case. For example, Old Polish, Old Czech and similarly also modern Czech eight-syllable lines have completely different types of rhythmic drive.89 However, a bipartite structure very similar to the Russian one is found in Medieval Latin trochaic eight-syllable lines. In the latter, Jakobson’s figures show the accents distributed over the syllables in the following manner:90 Syllables: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. “De Corpori Christi,” Thomas Aquinas: 84.6 1.9 100 00.0 48.1 00.0 100 00.0 2. “Prologus in subjectum opusculum”: 84.6 00.0 98.9 00.0 64.8 00.0 100 00.0 3 4 119Russian Binary Meters. Part Two This drive is very similar to the Russian drive, but it is not as symmetrical: in the Latin the first syllable is considerably stronger than the fifth. A rhythmic drive in the main similar to the Russian is also found in the German four-foot trochee. The trochees of four German poets studied show the following stress distributions for the metrically strong syllables:91 Syllables: 1 3 5 7 Bürger: 82.3 93.1 86.3 95.6 Goethe: 81.3 94.3 86.9 98.9 Schiller: 73.2 85.7 88.1 98.2 Heine: 69.7 92.7 73.2 97.2 Here the great similarity between Bürger’s and Goethe’s rhythm is at once apparent. The bipartite rhythmic structure with the stronger icti on the third and seventh syllables emerges clearly, although the contrast between the strong and weak icti is far less marked than in the Russian line. In Heine the drive is more emphatic than in Bürger and Goethe, the contrast between strong and weak icti being greater, but the strength of Heine’s rhythmic oscillation still falls below that of the Russians. Schiller’s line, however, differs from the lines of the other German poets studied, in that in his line the fifth-syllable ictus is stronger than the third-syllable ictus: thus, Schiller’s line shows a progressive strengthening of the icti from the first to the last. As we shall see in the next section, a high stress percentage for the penultimate ictus is also characteristic of Schiller in the four-foot iamb. His poetry, therefore, reveals different rhyth- mic tendencies from those found in Bürger, Goethe and Heine. The origin of the German bipartite rhythmic structure is, in our opinion, to be found in Medieval Latin poetry, primarily in the church hymns written in trochaic eight-syllable lines, as in the following example from a thirteenth- century hymns: Dies irae, dies illa Solvet saeclum in favilla Teste David cum Sibylla. Such hymns became popular also in religious poetry written in German, which borrowed from Medieval Latin hymnology not only the themes but also the rhythmic structure of the line, and probably musical forms as well. Church hymns were also popular with the eighteenth-century German poets, e. g., Gellert (“Osterlied”): 120 Kiril Taranovsky Jesus lebt, mit ihm auch ich. Tod, wo sind nun deine Schrecken? Er, er lebt und wird auch mich Von den Toten auferwecken. Er verklärt mich in sein Licht; Dies ist meine Zuversicht. When all this is taken into consideration, the connection between the rhyth- mic drive of the Medieval Latin verse and the German verse of the eighteenth century becomes at the very least a strong probability.92 Since Russian syllabo-tonic verse was formed on the German model, the question must be raised as to whether the rhythmic drive of the German trochaic octosyllabic line could have influenced, and to what degree, the for- mation of the rhythmic drive of the Russian four-foot trochee. We do not feel that that influence was significant. We have already shown that the bipartite rhythmic structure with strong icti on the third and seventh syllable was pre- sent in the first hemistich of Trediakovskij’s and Kantemir’s thirteen-syllable lines, i. e. before the appearance of the first imitations of the German trochaic eight-syllable line. And in Trediakovskij’s thirteen-syllable line, the bipartite structure is already more clearly marked than in German verse. Kantemir’s above-mentioned rule concerning the octosyllabic line bears witness to the fact that Russian poets, even without contact with German poetry, had by the early 1740s become fully aware of the bipartite rhythmic structure with strong icti on the third and the seventh syllables. The only instance of possi- ble German influence is Lomonosov’s first attempt at the trochaic tetrameter, when he translated Fénelon’s ode in four-foot trochees at Freiburg. This would be a perfectly tenable thesis, since Lomonosov’s first attempts at the iamb were also, as we shall see in the next section, permeated with the rhythmic drive of the German meter.93 In Lomonosov’s translation of Fénelon the stresses are distributed in the following manner: Syllables: 1 3 5 7 % of stresses: 79.3 82.1 58.6 100 As we see, the bipartite structure is still fairly undeveloped: the difference between the stress percentages for the first and third syllables is very small and the percentage of stresses on the first syllable is close to the correspond- ing percentage for the German poets. This high stress percentage for the first syllable of the four-foot trochee does not again occur in any Russian poet. We 121Russian Binary Meters. Part Two should not, however, forget that Lomonosov’s translation remained buried in the files of the Russian Academy, and that it did not serve as an exam- ple to Russian poets; an example was provided, rather, by the six lines in his “Pis’mo” – too few lines to give any real feel of the rhythmic drive. While Russian poetry is indebted to Lomonosov for the establishment and popu- larization of the iambic meter (which will be discussed in the next section), Trediakovskij and Sumarokov contributed more to the popularizing of Russian trochees. Sumarokov in particular was close to folk poetry, whose form he so abundantly imitated in his lyrics, and neither he nor Trediakovskij had read German poetry to such a degree that they became influenced by its rhythm. Bearing these points in mind, we can state with assurance that in the formation of the rhythmic drive of the Russian literary four-foot trochee, the influence of folk poetry was the decisive factor. During the historical development of the four-foot trochee, its rhythmic drive did not undergo any drastic changes, as did, for example, the drive of the four-foot iamb. From the 1740s to the second half of the twentieth century, we see an unbroken line of development (of course with certain individual deviations), which consisted in a progressive strengthening of the contrast between the weak and strong icti. The development of the rhythmic drive from Lomonosov to the end of the nineteenth century is shown in Table I, 1–26. We note immediately that the percentage of stresses on the third syllable shows a continuous rise. In the poets of the eighteenth century it is between 82.1% and 94.4%, and in those of the nineteenth century between 96.1% and 100%. In eight examples it reaches the maximum 100%; this is one of the rare examples of a rhythmic tendency developing into a constant. For the first syllable, in the eighteenth century the percentage of stresses is between 56.2% and 79.3%; it is usually somewhat above 60%. In the nineteenth century, if we exclude Katenin (73.6%) and the youthful Puškin (63.6%), the percentage for the first syllable is between 43.7% and 58.3%; thus, in the nineteenth century, as a rule, a considerably lower per- centage of stresses occurs on the first syllable than in the eighteenth century. The fifth syllable offers a similar picture. The high figure is found in Krylov – 63.7% – at first glance a somewhat unusually high figure, because in no other poet does the percentage of stresses on the fifth syllable reach 60%. This is, however, a distinctive trait with Krylov. We shall see later that in other meters as well, his line is very heavy, i.e. has a high percentage of stresses. Meanwhile, in other eighteenth-century poets the percentage of stresses on the fifth syl- lable does not fall below 50%. With the poets of the nineteenth century, the percentage is in six cases above 50%, and in thirteen cases below. In Jazykov it is down to 34%, and in Poležaev it reaches the rather unusual low of 29.1%, 122 Kiril Taranovsky which again is characteristic of these poets, for as we shall see, they very often omit the stress on the penultimate ictus in other binary meters as well. As far as other individual poets are concerned, of special interest are the poets at the turn of the nineteenth century. Karamzin does not differ from the poets of the nineteenth century, but his much younger contemporary Katenin belongs, on the basis of stress percentages for the first and, to some extent, fifth syllables, to the eighteenth century, while his percentage for the third syllable puts him in the nineteenth century. This is in keeping with his archaistic proclivities.94 Even the lyrics of the youthful Puškin (1814–1822) are, where the first-syllable percentages are concerned, reminiscent of the eighteenth century, whereas his fairy tale Bova (1815) has already considerably fewer stresses on the first syl- lable. This difference is explained by the influence of Karamzin, whose work Puškin used as a model both in writing the fairy tale and on other occasions. The difference between the eighteenth and nineteenth century rhythmic patterns becomes still more evident if we examine the average percentages for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries:95 Syllables: 1 3 5 7 18th century: 63.3 89.5 54.8 100 19th century: 54.3 98.8 46.4 100 In comparison with the eighteenth century, the percentage of stresses on the third syllable has increased by almost 10%, while it has fallen on the first and fifth by some 8–9%. This has caused the rhythmic line in Diagram I to acquire more acute angles for the nineteenth century; the rhythmic oscillation between the third and seventh syllables – the strong points in the line – is consequently more pronounced in the nineteenth century than in the eighteenth century. This oscillation is almost symmetrical, except that the first syllable is somewhat more frequently stressed than the fifth. The difference between these two syl- lables is in the eighteenth century 8.5%, and in the nineteenth 7.9%. In fact, as is clear from Diagram I, the relative strengths of the first and the fifth syllables did not change, since both these syllables became weaker in the nineteenth century by an equal amount. 123Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Диаграмма 1. Диаграмма 2. Диаграмма 4. Диаграмма 5. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 Broken line: Eighteenth century Solid line: Nineteenth century Diagram I. Distribution of stresses in four-foot trochee If we compare the rhythmic patterns of individual poets, we note that in ten cases the first syllable is stronger than the fifth, and weaker in only six cases (cf. Table I, 6, 10, 16, 22, 25 and 26). Thus in both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the weakest syllable is as a rule the fifth syllable, i. e. the penulti- mate ictus in the line. The bipartite rhythmic oscillation is almost completely symmetrical in Krylov, Mej and A. K. Tolstoj, in whose works the difference between the stress percentages for the first and fifth syllables is minimal, which, moreover, could be mere coincidence, as it is probably coincidence that in two examples from Puškin the fifth syllable is stronger (cf. Table I, 10 and 16), while in five cases the first is, as is normal, stronger.96 By comparing the average values for the eighteenth and nineteenth centu- ries we can clearly see the difference between the verse of the two centuries, but the evolution of the four-foot trochee becomes even clearer when we compare the typical verse of individual poets over shorter time segments. In diagrams II–V we have accordingly juxtaposed the rhythmic lines for Lomonosov, Trediakovskij, Deržavin, Puškin and Poležaev. 124 Kiril Taranovsky Диаграмма 1. Диаграмма 2. Диаграмма 3. Диаграмма 4. Диаграмма 5. Диаграмма 6. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 Diagram II Broken line: Lomonosov (Fénelon’s ode) Solid line: Trediakovskij Диаграмма 1. Диаграмма 2. Диаграмма 3. Диаграмма 4. Диаграмма 5. Диаграмма 6. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 Diagram III Broken line: Trediakovskij Solid line: DeržavinДиаграмма 1. Диаграмма 2. Диаграмма 3. Диаграмма 4. Диаграмма 5. Диаграмма 6. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 Diagram IV Broken line: Deržavin Solid line: Puškin (“Skazka o mërtvoj carevne”) Диаграмма 1. Диаграмма 2. Диаграмма 3. Диаграмма 4. Диаграмма 5. Диаграмма 6. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 Diagram V Broken line: Puškin Solid line: Poležaev While these diagrams somewhat simplify the evolution of the Russian four- foot trochee, they clearly show how the rhythmic line from Lomonosov to Poležaev acquires progressively more acute angles. This can be seen again from Diagram VI, which shows the vast distance between Lomonosov’s first attempts, in which the bipartite rhythmic oscillation is barely perceptible, and Poležaev, in whose work this oscillation is most strongly developed. The rhythmic drive in poets of the second half of the nineteenth century is closer 125Russian Binary Meters. Part Two to that of Žukovskij and Puškin than it is to that of Poležaev and Jazykov; this can be seen in Diagram VII where Puškin’s rhythmic line is compared to Fet’s: Диаграмма 1. Диаграмма 2. Диаграмма 3. Диаграмма 4. Диаграмма 5. Диаграмма 6. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 Diagram VI Broken line: Lomonosov Solid line: Poležaev Диаграмма 7. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 Diagram VII Broken line: Puškin (“Skazka o zolotom petuške”) Solid line: Fet The difference in the rhythmic drive of individual poets can be clearly felt by comparing even a small number of their lines. This can be illustrated by two short excerpts from Deržavin and Poležaev: Skól’ tvoími čudesámi, Vzgljáda tvoegó lučámi, Ímenem tvoím blažénny! Skól’ tobój my vosxiščénny! Zrí na náši tý dnes’ líca, Krótkaja nebés zeníca! Gdé tvoë liš’ ímja, vzóry Nám vozbléščut, – pésni, xóry Tám povsjúdu razdajútsja. Vosklicánija nesútsja: Vséx tobój my v svéte kráše, Lučezárno sólnce náše. (Deržavin) 126 Kiril Taranovsky Razdaválsja gúl gromóvyj, Polunóčnaja grozá Bléskom mólnii bagróvoj Ozarjála nebesá. Nad tumánnoju rekóju Drévnij Áncium dremál I ugrjúmoj tišinóju Mírnyx žítelej k pokóju Blagosklónno prizyvál. (Poležaev) In the twelve Deržavin lines only nine stresses are omitted: two in the first foot (lines ten and twelve), three in the second (lines two, three and six), and four in the third (lines one, four, nine and ten). This excerpt, therefore, is much too small to bring out the bipartite oscillation.97 Of the twelve lines, four, i. e. one- third, have all four icti stressed. Consequently the trochaic metrical scheme makes itself clearly felt: –́– ∪ –́– ∪ –́– ∪ –́– ∪ The omitted stresses break the monotony of the trochaic scheme by inserting in the lines moments of frustrated expectation. In the Poležaev excerpt, however, there is not a single line with all four icti stressed. In only nine lines fourteen stresses are missing: six from the first foot, and eight from the third foot. Five lines have two unstressed icti (on the first and the fifth syllables). The entire excerpt quite obviously leans toward a symmetrical pattern: ∪ ∪ –́– ∪ ∪ ∪ –́– [∪] while the stresses which do occur on the first and the fifth syllables pro- duce moments of unfulfilled expectation, thereby giving greater variety to the rhythm. As we see, the rhythm of Deržavin differs considerably from the rhythm of Poležaev; hence the clear-cut difference in the rhythmic lines for these two poets, as shown in the appropriate diagrams. The bipartite structure of the four-foot trochee is produced by certain rhythmic variations or figures. In all there are seven such variations:98 127Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Figure No. of stressed icti in the line Stressed Syllables Example I 4 1, 3, 5, 7 Búrja mglóju nébo króet II III IV 3 3 3 –, 3, 5, 7 1, –, 5, 7 1, 3, –, 7 S kolesnícy pál Dadón K slávnonu carjú Saltánu Víxri snéžnye krutjá V VI VII 2 2 2 1, –, –, 7 –, 3, –, 7 –, –, 5, 7 Pó ͜ morju, po ͜ okeánu Razočtëmsja, nakonéc Vozblagodarít’ za blágo Of all these variations, the seventh is the rarest. It was found in five poets only, and then only in from 0.1% to 0.3% of the lines. In twenty-one examples it was not found at all. The fifth variation is also very rare. It occurs most frequently in Lomonosov’s translation of Fénelon’s ode (2.9%) and also in Trediakovskij (1.6%). In the other seven cases, its percentage varies from 0.3% to 0.9%: in seventeen examples it does not appear at all. It is obvious that Russian poetry avoids having two unstressed feet next to each other. The small percentages for these variations (VII, V) shows that they play a quite insignificant role in the general rhythmic drive of the four-foot trochee. The third figure (III) plays a certain role in the eighteenth century, where its percentage ranges between 15% and 5.6%. Its subsequent sharp decline is very evident. In the nineteenth century its percentage varies from 3.6% to 0.4% and in nine cases is zero. This evolution is perfectly understandable: the third figure shows a progres- sive fall-off because of the increase in the percentage of stresses on the third syllable. Thus the Russian four-foot trochee gradually narrows down to only four variations. The percentages for these variations clearly show that two opposing tenden- cies are at work in the Russian four-foot trochee. One is the tendency to stress all four icti. This function is performed by the first figure. Its percentage varies from 12.1% to 37.5% (the low figure is found, quite naturally, in Poležaev and the high figure in Katenin). Usually just under one-fourth of the lines have all four icti stressed. The second tendency consists in maximum stress omis- sion. This tendency finds expression in the sixth figure, which has only two stressed icti. It is usually less common than the first figure, and its percentage in the nineteenth century is as a rule larger than in the eighteenth century: in the poets of the nineteenth century it is usually above 20%. The high figure is found in Poležaev (39.3%), and the low figure in Lomonosov (Fénelon’s ode, 7.8%) and Katenin (7.8%). However, in Lomonosov’s later trochees its percentage increases to 20.8%, bringing Lomonosov into line with the poets 128 Kiril Taranovsky of the nineteenth century. Thus Lomonosov himself pointed to the direction in which this rhythmic variation would develop. In other eighteenth-century poets, with the exception of Karamzin, the percentage figure is considerably lower – between 11.9% and 18.1%. Somewhere between these two extreme tendencies are two intermediate rhythmic variations with three stresses. Figure II omits the stress on the first foot, and Figure IV omits the stress on the third foot: II ∪ ∪ –́– ∪ –́– ∪ –́– [∪] IV –́– ∪ –́– ∪ ∪ ∪ –́– [∪] These two figures taken together give us six stresses (four strong and two weak) out of a possible eight stresses in two lines. Figure II varies from 17% to 31% (disregarding the low figure for Lomonosov’s first ode) and Figure IV varies from 20.5% to 37.9%. As a rule, the fourth figure is more common than the second; in fact it is usually the most common variation of all (in eighteen out of twenty-six examples). The two rhythmic variations under discussion (II and IV) are the most significant for the four-foot trochee, for it is these which con- tribute most to the establishment of its bipartite rhythmic oscillation. The sum of their percentages varies from 43.6% to 60.4%; in eighteen of our examples it is above 50%, and in only eight is it below 50%. If we add to this sum the percentage for the sixth figure, we see that from 61% to 87.9% of the lines (once again disregarding Lomonosov’s first ode) reinforce the bipartite rhythmic oscillation, while only 12.1% to 37.5%, as we noted, reproduce the metrical scheme with all four icti stressed. The bipartite rhythmic oscillation emerges most strongly in Poležaev, Jazykov, Nekrasov and Mej, and is weakest (exclud- ing again Lomonosov’s first attempt) in the trochees of Katenin and Krylov. The development of the four-foot trochee in respect to the use of the dif- ferent rhythmic variations can be best seen if we compare the averages for the poetry of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: Variations: I II III IV V VI VII 18th c.: 24.8 20.2 9.7 28.1 0.7 16.4 0.1 19th c.: 22.6 22.8 1.1 30.6 0.1 22.9 0.05 These figures show that the most significant changes, as between the two centu- ries, occur in the third figure, which disrupts the bipartite rhythmic oscillation, and the sixth which creates it in its purest form. While the percentage for the sixth figure has risen sharply in the nineteenth century, the percentage for the 129Russian Binary Meters. Part Two third has fallen even more sharply. Also somewhat higher is the percentage for the intermediate figures (II and IV) while the line with all four icti stressed (I) is somewhat more rare in the nineteenth than in the eighteenth century. While the metrical scheme naturally calls for 100% stresses, in practice only 68.2% to 84.2% of the icti are stressed in the Russian four-foot trochee. The highest stress percentage figures are found in the first attempt by Lomonosov (80%), in Krylov (80.2%), and in Katenin (82.4%). Thus their lines carry the greatest number of stresses and are consequently the “heaviest”. At the oppo- site extreme are Poležaev with only 68.2% and Jazykov with 71.8% of the icti stressed. The percentage varies from poet to poet, but is most often around 75%. Overall, the eighteenth-century trochaic tetrameter carries a somewhat greater number of stresses than that of the nineteenth century. The average percentage for the eighteenth century is 76.9% and for the nineteenth century – 74.9%. At the same time, however, the eighteenth-century trochee appears much “heavier” than one might expect on the basis of these percentages. This impression is due to the following factors. In the nineteenth century, there has been a decrease in the stress percentages for the first and fifth syllables, and the stresses now no longer occurring on these syllables have to some extent gone to swell the percentages for the third syllable; hence the near equality in total stress percentages for the two centuries. On the other hand, however, we must emphasize the fact that whereas we are consciously aware of the lightening of the stress load on the first and fifth syllables, the increased load on the third syllable does not have the effect of, as it were, weighting down the line. On the contrary, the absence of stress on the third syllable creates some sort of dissonance, since we have become accustomed, even subconsciously, to expect the constant stress on this syllable. This explains why, for example, even Fet’s trochaic tetrameter appears to us “lighter” than Trediakovskij’s, although the percentage of stressed icti is actually higher in Fet.99 130 Kiril Taranovsky 6. The Four-foot Iamb The four-foot iamb might well be termed the universal meter of Russian poetry. It is the favorite meter of Russian poets. In the eighteenth century it was used primarily for the solemn ode. In the nineteenth century it was employed in the writing of many romantic poems. It was the meter for Puškin’s “novel in verse”. It dominates the lyric genre. It has been pressed into service for the ballad, the elegy, the humorous verse epistle and the epigram. It is no exaggeration to say that at least one third of all Russian lines of poetry are iambic tetrameters. Two examples will suffice: of approximately 12,000 lines by Lomonosov, over 5,000 lines were written in the four-foot iambic meter.100 Of nearly 40,000 lines written by Puškin, more than 21,500 are written in this meter.101 A similar proportion is surely to be found in many other poets. Logically, therefore, the four-foot iamb deserves a very high priority in the present study. Our investigation of this meter is based on an examination of more than 100,000 four-foot iambic lines.102 The first four-foot iambs in Russian poetry are to be found in Lomonosov’s famous “Oda na vzjatie Xotina”. Late in 1739 or in early 1740 Lomonosov sent this ode (together with his “Pis’mo o pravilax rossijskogo stixotvortstva”) to the members of the Russian Assembly.103 A new period in Russian poetry had begun. During the course of the following century the four-foot iamb underwent considerable evolution, even changing its basic rhythmic drive. The 1820’s mark, as we shall see, a critical phase in its development. In 1830, having used this meter for fifteen years, Puškin wrote: Четырехстопный ямб мне надоел: Им пишет всякий. Мальчикам в забаву Пора б его оставить. But Puškin did not abandon the four-foot iamb. Nor did his fellow-poets. It was a favorite meter for the Symbolists and it remains in favor with a majority of the poets of our day. On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Lomonosov’s first ode, the poet Vladislav Xodasevič composed a veritable apotheosis in honor of the four-foot iamb: Не ямбом ли четырехстопным, Заветным ямбом, допотопным? О чём, как не о нём самом, О благодатном ямбе том? 131Russian Binary Meters. Part Two С высот надзвездной Музикии К нам ангелами занесён, Он крепче всех твердынь России, Славнее всех ее знамён. Из памяти изгрызли годы, За что и кто в Хотине пал, Но первый звук Хотинской оды Нам первым криком жизни стал. В тот день на холмы снеговые Камена русская взошла И дивный голос свой впервые Далёким сёстрам подала. С тех пор в разнообразьи строгом, Как оный славный Водопад, По четырем его порогам Стихи российские кипят. И чем сильней спадают с кручи, Тем пенистей водоворот, Тем сокровенный лад певучий И выше светлых брызгов взлёт, – Тех брызгов, где, как сон, повисла, Сияя счастьем высоты, Играя переливом смысла, – Живая радуга мечты.1* 1 * Translator’s note. Taranovsky leaves out the concluding quatrain of Xodasevič’s poem, which in the posthumously published (1939) version is preceded by ellipses marking an omitted eighth quatrain. Таинственна его природа, В нëм спит спондей, поëт пэон, Ему один закон – свобода, В его свободе есть закон. Following is a plain prose translation of the full poem: 132 Kiril Taranovsky As was first demonstrated by Belyj in his Simvolizm, the Russian four-foot iamb of the eighteenth century differs fundamentally from the four-foot iamb of the nineteenth century. In the eighteenth century the strong icti fall on the second and the eighth syllables: the fourth and the sixth syllables are consid- erably weaker, the weakest being the penultimate (the sixth syllable). In the nineteenth century the fourth and the eighth syllables are strong; the second syllable is weaker than the fourth; and the sixth, as in the eighteenth century, is the weakest. The rhythmic drive is bipartite, but not symmetrical: the second syllable as a rule is twice as strong as the sixth. The difference in the rhythmic drive of the four-foot iamb in the eighteenth century as opposed to the nine- teenth century may be readily perceived by reading even a small number of lines. The following is an excerpt from Lomonosov: В лугá усы́панны цвéтами Цари́ца трудолю́бных пчéл Блестя́щими шумя́ крылами Лети́т между  ͜ прохлáдных сéл; I. Is it not fitting tо write in iambic tetrameter, the sacred antediluvian iamb, when the subject is none other than the beneficent meter itself ? II. From the heights of Music’s realm, from beyond the stars, it was carried down to us by angels. It is stronger than all Russia’s fastnesses, more glorious than all its banners. III. The years have effaced the memory of who fell at Khotin, and for what cause, yet the first sound of the Khotin Ode has become for us the first sound of life. IV. On that day the Russian Camena ascended the snow-covered hills and, in her wondrous voice, first announced her presence to her remote sisters. V. Since then, the current of Russian verse, constrained yet manifold like that glorious Cataract, has swirled along its four rapids. VI. And the more precipitous its descent – the foamier the vortex, the more intimate the lyric melody, and the higher the upward surge of the radiant spray. VII. And in the droplets, beaming with the joy of ascent, playing with an overflow of sense, the vivid rainbow of a dream, like the iamb, hangs suspended. VIII. … IX. Mysterious is its nature; the spondee sleeps and the paeon sings within it. It has but one law – freedom. There is law in its freedom. 133Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Стекáется, остáвив рóзы И сóтом напоéнны лóзы, Со тщáнием отвсю́ду рóй, Свою́ цари́цу окружáет! И тéсно в слéд ея́ летает Усéрдием вперéнный стрóй. Подóбным жáром воспалéнный Стекáлся здéсь Росси́йский рóд, И рáдостию восхищéнный Тесня́сь взирáл на твóй прихóд. Младéнцы кýпно с сединóю Спеши́ли слéдом за тобóю, Тогдá вели́кий грáд Петрóв В еди́ну стóгну умести́лся, Тогдá и вéтр останови́лся, Чтоб плéск всходи́л до облакóв, Тогдá во всé предéлы свéта, Как мóлния дости́гнул слýх, Что цáрствует Елисавéта, Петрóв в себé имéя дýх. In these twenty-four lines twenty stresses are omitted, ten on the fourth and ten on the sixth syllables, while the second and eighth syllables are always stressed. The stress pattern thus emphasizes the beginning and the end of the line, and the oscillation can be likened to a single swing of the pendulum. This oscillation is seen in its purest form in a line of the following type: Čto ͜ tsárstvuet Elisavéta An altogether different impression is conveyed by, for example, Puškin’s iamb: Люблю́ тебя́, Петрá творéнье, Люблю́ твой стрóгий, стрóйный ви́д, Невы́ держáвное течéнье, Береговóй её грани́т, Твои́х огрáд узóр чугýнный, Твои́х задýмчивых ночéй Прозрáчный сýмрак, блéск безлýнный, Когдá я в кóмнате моéй 134 Kiril Taranovsky Пишý, читáю без лампáды, И я́сны спя́щие громáды Пусты́нных ýлиц, и светлá Адмиралтéйская иглá, И, не пускáя тьмý ночнýю На золоты́е небесá, Однá заря́ смени́ть другýю Спеши́т, дав нóчи полчасá. ... ... ... ... ... Красýйся, грáд Петрóв, и стóй Неколеби́мо, кáк Росси́я, Да умири́тся же с тобóй И побеждённая стихи́я; Враждý и плéн стари́нный свóй Пусть вóлны фи́нские забýдут И тщéтной злóбою не бýдут Тревóжить вéчный сóн Петрá! In these twenty-four lines twenty-one stresses are omitted – approximately the same number as in Lomonosov. But Puškin’s lines differ from those of Lomonosov in that in Puškin seven stresses are missing on the second syllable and fourteen on the sixth. Therefore the second and fourth icti are thus the strong ones (the fourth and eighth syllables). The rhythm oscillates between these as between two strong points: the oscillation is thus bipartite. This type of oscillation in its pure form is seen in a line of the following type: Admiraltéjskaja iglá We see then that the rhythmic drive of the eighteenth century is based on the two strong icti separated from each other by the two weaker icti, whereas in the bipartite structure of the nineteenth century the weaker and stronger icti alternate. We are thus confronted with the following questions: 1) What is the origin of the “single-swing” drive of the four-foot iamb of the eighteenth century?; 2) In what way and for what reasons did it change into the bipartite structure of the nineteenth century? To answer the first question, we shall have to compare the poetry of Lomonosov (where this eighteenth-century drive appeared for the first time) with the German poetry that served as his model. To answer the second question, we shall have to study in detail the development of the four- foot iamb, not losing sight of the evolution of other Russian binary meters. In 135Russian Binary Meters. Part Two order to present this development as clearly as possible, we shall investigate the four-foot iamb by periods: 1) the eighteenth century; 2) the transitional period (in which we observe two stages) and: 3) the nineteenth century. In introducing the four-foot iamb into Russian poetry, Lomonosov had no examples to follow, for neither in Russian folk poetry nor in the literary tradition did there exist a meter which resembled the iamb. Thus Lomonosov’s first attempt has to be explained solely in terms of German influence, for it is known that Lomonosov had made a thorough study of German verse theory and that he borrowed from it the rules for Russian verse. Lomonosov followed in the footsteps of his German teachers not only in theory but also in practice. An ode by Günther written to commemorate the conclusion of a peace treaty with the Turks104 served as a model for Lomonosov’s ode. Not only was Lomonosov under the influence of Günther’s ideas, borrowing from him certain lines, the meter and the stanzaic form, but he even subconsciously absorbed Günther’s rhythmic drive, the drive which is more or less charac- teristic of the German four-foot iamb in general. Let us compare the distribution of stresses in Lomonosov’s, Günther’s, Goethe’s and Schiller’s poetry105: Syllables: 2 4 6 8 Lomonosov: 99.3 87.1 86.1 100.0 Günther: 97.0 89.4 85.8 96.6 Goethe: 94.4 89.6 86.6 99.0 Schiller: 92.1 79.2 90.5 97.9 As can be seen from Diagram VIII, the rhythmic lines are almost identical for Lomonosov and Günther. Goethe’s rhythmic pattern shows a similar stress distribution. Schiller’s differs somewhat from Günther’s and Goethe’s because of his somewhat higher percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable: in his line the third ictus is stronger than the second. This is a distinctive characteris- tic of Schiller’s poetry. In his four-foot trochee also the penultimate ictus is stronger than the preceding one. Yet even in Schiller’s line the strongest icti are the first and the fourth, i. e. those icti that strengthen the beginning and end of the line. 136 Kiril Taranovsky Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Broken line: Günther Solid line: Lomonosov Diagram VIII. Distribution of stresses in the four-foot iambs of Günther and Lomonosov Comparing Lomonosov’s stress figures with the German stress figures, we conclude that Lomonosov, under the influence of the Germans, emphasized the first and last feet to an even greater extent in subsequent years – probably quite unconsciously. In his first ode Lomonosov clings fairly closely to the four-stress iambic metrical form: the percentage of lines with all four stresses in this ode is 72.5%, while lines with two pyrrhics are completely lacking. In the fourth section we noted that Lomonosov at that same time considered the pyrrhic as some sort of compromise with the structure of the Russian language and even as a defect. In his “Pis’mo” Lomonosov speaks of lines containing pyrrhics as “irregular or free”. It seems that Lomonosov was not satisfied with his first attempt primar- ily because of the pyrrhics. In two 1741 odes he strove to create a totally pure iamb (cf. Table II, 2); and the percentage of lines with all four stresses climbed in those odes to 95%. This extremely ponderous line was to remain an isolated phenomenon in Russian poetry. As early as 1742 and 1743 Lomonosov returns to his 1739 rhythmic pattern (cf. Table II, 3 & 4). It is obvious that he had real- ized that the pyrrhic is not a defect, for in 1745–1746 he began to favor lines with pyrrhics, and in his four-foot iamb of those years the percentage of lines with all four icti stressed decreases to 32.7%, and later decreases still further. His poetry from 1745 to 1746 (cf. Table II, 5–12) shows a significant weakening of the second and third icti, resulting in a far more clearly perceptible rhythmic oscillation between the two strong icti (on the second and eighth syllables). Diagram IX shows the further evolution of Lomonosov’s four-foot iambic line. 137Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Dotted line: Lomonosov’s 4-ft. iamb (1741) Broken line: his 4-ft. iamb (1743) Solid line: his 4-ft. iamb (1759–1760) Diagram IX Lomonosov’s four-foot iamb from 1745 to 1764 does not differ greatly from that of his successors. In addition to Lomonosov, we studied the four-foot iamb of fourteen eighteenth-century poets. In all the poets studied (cf. Table II, 5–26), the second syllable is strongly stressed; the percentage of stresses is as a rule above 90% (it ranges from 88.2% to 98.1%) and only in two cases (Kostrov and Kapnist) does it fall below 90%. The fourth syllable is somewhat weaker than the second and the percentage of stresses on it varies from 71.2% to 89.2%. Only in three examples (all three taken from Lomonosov) does it fall below 75%. Also in only three cases — these, moreover, from the last decade of the eighteenth century (Nikolev, Krylov and Kotel’nickij) — does it exceed 85%. In the remaining sixteen examples, the percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable ranges between 75% and 85% – which may be regarded as constituting the typical range limits for the eighteenth-century Russian four- foot iamb. The difference in the percentages of the stresses on the second and fourth syllables is always in favor of the second, and varies usually between 6.3% and 23.3%. Only towards the end of the eighteenth century can one feel a tendency toward the equalization of the relative strengths of the second and fourth syllables. This occurs in two poets (Krylov and Kotel’nickij), and even with them the second syllable is stronger, though only by a small margin: the 138 Kiril Taranovsky difference between the second and the fourth syllables is 3.6% in Krylov and 2.1% in Kotel’nickij. In the four-foot iamb of the eighteenth century the least stable ictus is that on the sixth syllable. The percentage of stresses on it varies from 41.9% to 61.8%. It is found to be above 60% only in two poets: Petrov and Krylov – and in the latter we have already observed in the four-foot trochee an unusually high stress percentage for the penultimate ictus. The percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable falls below 50% only in five examples: in Lomonosov (1747 — 48% and 1750 — 47.8%), Osipov (1791 — 47.3%) Kozodavlev (42.8%) and Kotel’nickij (1795 — 41.9%). Thus in the great majority of cases this percentage is over 50%. These high stress percentages for the sixth syllable must be con- sidered typical of the eighteenth century. At the same time we note a certain trend towards the end of the eighteenth century to weaken the ictus on the sixth syllable, a tendency which is strongly evident in the verse of Kotel’nickij and Kozodavlev, poets in whose work the percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable is quite unusual for the eighteenth century. As we see, toward the end of the eighteenth century the tetrameters of three poets — Krylov, Kotel’nickij and Kozodavlev — show certain specific charac- teristics which set them apart from the work of their predecessors. While the high percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable in Krylov can be explained by the fact that he tends more than others to stress all the icti (the percentage of lines with all four stresses in his poetry is 44.5%), Kotel’nickij’s high figures for the fourth syllable are obviously caused by a lowering of the percentages of stresses on the sixth. In Kozodavlev, however, the reduction of the stress percentages for the sixth syllable did not produce the same result: instead, his entire line is more lightly stressed. The verse of these three poets shows that before the end of the eighteenth century the quite strongly defined norms, characteristic of that century, had begun to waver. The average for all the eighteenth-century poets studied shows the follow- ing stress distributions: Syllables: 2 4 6 8 % stressed: 93.2 79.7 53.2 100 These figures may be regarded as typical for eighteenth-century Russian verse.106 In diagram form they produce a line similar to that already observed in the German four-foot iamb – except that the stress percentages for the fourth and sixth syllables are considerably lower. In general, therefore, the Russian four-foot iamb of the eighteenth century reproduces the German 139Russian Binary Meters. Part Two rhythmic drive and even makes it more emphatic by stress omissions, espe- cially on the penultimate ictus: the German four-foot iamb never shows such a large number of unstressed icti on the sixth syllable. This difference between the eighteenth-century Russian and the German iambic tetrameter is illus- trated in Diagram X. Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Broken line: Goethe’s 4-ft. iamb Solid line: Russian 4-ft. iamb of the 18th century Diagram X Two stages can be observed in the transitional period in the development of the Russian four-foot iamb. The first covers approximately the period from 1800 to 1814, i.e. up to Puškin’s first attempt at writing in the four-foot iamb (“Kol’na”), and the second from 1814 to 1820, i.e. the period in which Puškin’s poetry was maturing. The exact chronological boundaries cannot be estab- lished, for some poets took longer to adopt the new rhythmic patterns while others accepted them readily. For the first stage we examined the poetry of Vasilij Puškin (1795–1815), Žukovskij (1797–1800 and 1803–1813), Batjuškov (1805–1813), Vjazemskij (1811–1815), A. Puškin (1814, “Kol’na”) and Del’vig (1814) (cf. Table II, 27–33). In allof these poets the eighteenth-century rhythmic drive is still clearly perceptible. Vasilij Puškin actually differs in no way from his eight- eenth-century predecessors, and we shall, therefore, disregard him in our examination of the stress distribution figures for the first stage in the transi- tional period. In the other poets studied one can already feel certain minor 140 Kiril Taranovsky changes in the rhythmic drive. The stress percentage for the second syllable varies in their poetry from 85.1% to 97.1%. In four cases the figure is above 90%, as in the eighteenth century. In two it is below 90% (Vjazemskij and Del’vig), which was rare in the eighteenth century. Žukovskij, Batjuškov and the early Puškin do not, as far as the stress figures for the second syllable are concerned, differ from the eighteenth century. The stress percentage for the fourth syllable varies in this stage from 78.5% to 88.3%, and is below 85% In only two cases (Del’vig — 78.5%, and Vjazemskij — 84.9%). In Žukovskij, Batjuškov and Puškin, it is already over 85%, which would be exceptional for the eighteenth century (we did observe percentages over 85% in the last decade of the eighteenth century). Thus Žukovskij, Batjuškov and Puškin, by virtue of their high stress figures for the fourth syllable, are already moving away from the eighteenth-century norm. The percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable in the poets belonging to this stage varies from 40% to 54.4%. Only in two cases is it above 50%, while in four it is below. In other words, we have here a reversal of the eighteenth-century norm, in which the percentage of stresses on that syllable falls below 50% only as an exception — and then primarily towards the end of the century. The essence of these minor changes which occurred in the first stage of the transitional period can be best seen by comparing average stress distributions for the eighteenth century with those for the first stage of the transitional period (cf. Diagram XI): Syllables: 2 4 6 8 18th century 93.2 79.7 53.2 100 First stage of transitional period107 92.6 85.9 49.1 100 We note that in the first stage of the transitional period the percentage of stresses on the second syllable has remained basically the same as in the eight- eenth century. However, the percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable has risen considerably, while it has fallen on the sixth by a corresponding amount. It is obvious that the percentage on the fourth syllable has risen to a great extent at the expense of the percentage on the sixth syllable. We previously observed this same phenomenon in Kotel’nickij (1795). To be sure, this shift from one ictus to the other did not take place in all cases. For example, Del’vig, like Kozodavlev in the eighteenth century, shows a reduced stress percent- age for the sixth syllable without any compensating increase on the fourth. This indicates that the poets belonging to this period did not consciously weaken the sixth in favor of the fourth syllable, but that the weakening of 141Russian Binary Meters. Part Two the sixth syllable in the majority of poets automatically caused, so to speak, a strengthening of the fourth. (As we shall see, in the first decades of the nineteenth century the penultimate ictus is also noticeably weakened in other meters.) Owing to the strengthening of the ictus on the fourth syllable the difference between the stress percentages for the second and fourth syllables has decreased. In the eighteenth century this difference averages 13.5%, but in 1800–1814 it is 6.7%. Thus the relative difference in strength between the first and the second ictus has somewhat diminished.Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Broken line: 4-ft. iamb of the 18th century Solid line: first stage of the transitional period Diagram XI The second stage of the transitional period begins in 1814. We studied the following poets belonging to that period: Žukovskij (1814–1832), Batjuškov (1815–1817), Vjazemskij (1816–1819), Puškin (all of the four-foot iamb from 1814–1820 and Baxčisarajskij fontan, 1822–1823), Del’vig (1817–1819), Kozlov (1821), Venevitinov (d. 1827) and Ryleev (Dumy, 1821–1823) (cf. Table II, 34–50). In these poets the percentage of stresses on the second syllable varies from 84% to 92.5%: in five cases it is above 90%, while in twelve it is below. Thus the stress percentage for the second syllable does not normally reach 90%, whereas in the eighteenth century it was almost always above. The per- centage of stresses on the fourth syllable varies from 82.6% to 94.1%. As a rule it is above 85% (in thirteen out of seventeen cases) and even exceeds 90% in six cases. The second ictus has thus become perceptibly stronger than 142 Kiril Taranovsky it was in the eighteenth century (in which in only three cases, and that in the last decade, did the percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable exceed 85%). The difference between the percentages of stresses on the fourth and second syllables is in favor of the fourth in eleven cases and in favor of the second in only six (it varies from +4.1% to –4.9%). The relative strength of the first and second icti thus tends toward equality. The percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable varies in the second stage of the transitional period from 34.4% to 51%. In seven cases it is below 40%, a percentage not observed before 1814, and in nine cases it is between 40% and 50%: in only one case (in Ryleev’s Dumy) does it exceed 50%. When we recall that in the eighteenth century this percentage as a rule was above 50%, we real- ize how relatively weak the sixth syllable has now become. In this respect, the similarity between Žukovskij (1818–1820), Batjuškov (1815–1817) and Puškin (lyrics, 1814–1820) is clearly evident, since in all three the stress percentages for the sixth syllable are now below 40%. All these changes in the rhythmic drive of the four-foot iamb can be clearly seen if we compare the averages for this period and the preceding one (cf. Diagram XII): Syllables: 2 4 6 8 First stage of transitional period: 92.6 85.9 49.1 100 Second stage of transitional period:108 87.7 87.7 43.2 100 As we see, the percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable has risen somewhat, while the percentages on the second and the sixth have fallen considerably. The drop in the percentage for the second syllable cannot be explained with- out a comparison with other iambic meters of the same period: but this will come later. The increase in the percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable is to a great extent, as in the preceding period, at the expense of the sixth syl- lable which has in 1814–1820 become still weaker. This is especially evident in Batjuškov and Puškin. By 1814–1820 the second and the fourth syllables have become equal in strength: thus we now have equally strong icti next to each other. 143Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Broken line: first stage of transitional period Solid line: second stage Diagram XII On the basis of the foregoing discussion, the following general observations can now be made concerning the transitional period. The reduction in the percentages of stresses on the sixth syllable (weakening of the penultimate ictus) is characteristic for the whole of the transitional period. While for its first stage the increase of stresses on the fourth syllable is also characteristic, more important for the second stage is the reduction of the percentage of stresses on the second syllable. All these changes did not occur independently of similar changes in other binary meters, in particular the iambic meters. As the foregoing discussion shows, the changes in the four-foot iamb of the transitional period occur simultaneously in the work of several poets. For this reason none of them can be considered the pioneer reformer of the Russian four-foot iamb. But their roles in the development of this meter are not identi- cal. Vjazemskij and Žukovskij, particularly the latter, contributed most to the weakening of the second syllable. On the other hand, Batjuškov and Puškin contributed more toward the stabilization of the second ictus as a strong one, since in their work the stress percentages for the fourth syllable exceed 90%. These two characteristic tendencies of the entire transitional period are best illustrated by the following comparison of the four-foot iambs of Žukovskij and Puškin: 144 Kiril Taranovsky Syllables: 2 4 6 8 Žukovskij (1814–1832): 85.0 85.0 43.2 100 Puškin (1814–1820): 90.5 90.5 40.8 100 The strengths of the fourth syllable in Žukovskij and the second syllable in Puškin are in line with the norms of the eighteenth century. However, the percentage of stresses on the second syllable in Žukovskij and the fourth in Puškin would be quite unusual for the eighteenth century. As we shall see below, these two tendencies of the transitional period (i. e. the progressive weakening of the second syllable and strengthening of the fourth) will both be present in the work of many poets after 1820. The fourth syllable will become still stronger and the second still weaker. In this way a new rhythmic drive will be created for the four-foot iamb. The majority of the poets studied as representative of the transitional period were quick to abandon the wavering drive of this stage and to adopt the new bipartite rhythmic structure. First to emancipate themselves were Vjazemskij, Puškin and Del’vig: after 1820 their iambs have a clearly perceptible new drive (cf. Table III, 1–20). An exception in Puškin’s poetry is Baxčisarajskij fontan (cf. Table II, 46), which constitutes the last echo of the transitional period in his poetry. In the same way we clearly see the transition to new patterns in Ryleev (executed in 1826): while his Dumy (1821–1823; cf. Table II, 50) shows a drive characteristic of the transitional period, his poem Vojnarovskij is quite clearly characterized by the new drive (cf. Table III, 21). The same change can also be seen in Kozlov if we compare his four-foot iamb of 1821 (cf. Table II, 48), on the one hand, and that of 1824 and 1827 (cf. Table III, 22 and 23), on the other. Of the remaining poets under discussion, only Vasilij Puškin remained faithful to the eighteenth-century drive after the year 1820. Batjuškov went insane and stopped writing, Venevitinov died in 1827. Žukovskij continued for a long time to vacillate between the old and the new rhythmic drive. V. Puškin was obviously the one most under the sway of the eighteenth-century drive. When in 1828 he again began to employ the four-foot iamb — for a poem of some length — he still retained the “single-swing” drive of the eighteenth century (cf. Table II, 55). The stress percentage for the second syllable in this work is, to be sure, under 90% (87.5%); but then the stress percentage for the fourth syllable is still 9.5% less than the percentage for the second. As for Žukovskij, his poetry from 1818 to 1832 shows considerable vacillations (cf. Table II, 34–38). In his poetry from 1818 to 1820 the fourth syllable is somewhat stronger than the second; in 1821 it is the second which is the stronger; but after 1823 the fourth syllable is once again stronger. If his poetry 145Russian Binary Meters. Part Two is analyzed in even smaller portions (e. g., if we take individual epistles from 1820 and 1821, or individual translations from 1832), the abovementioned vacillations become even more noticeable. It is obvious that in the period from 1814 to 1832 Žukovskij had lost contact with the eighteenth-century rhythmic drive, but did not feel definitely impelled toward the new bipartite structure. After 1832 there occurs a lengthy hiatus in Žukovskij’s four-foot iamb. But when ten years later he returned to this meter (“1 ijunja 1824”, cf. Table III, 40), his poetry quite clearly reflected the new rhythmic drive. There is one other poet whom we have not yet discussed and whose verse does not reflect the changes characteristic of the Russian iamb of the 1820’s, That poet is Kjuxel’beker (cf. Table II, 51–54), Like V. Puškin he was very conservative in respect to the rhythmic drive of the four-foot iamb. This is quite understandable. In his first period, before the Decembrist uprising, Kjuxel’beker displayed strongly archaistic tendencies. In style and rhythm he clearly followed the tradition of the eighteenth century. Kjuxel’beker was, moreover, strongly influenced by German poets, in whose work the rhyth- mic drive emphasizes the first and last icti in the line. Later, in exile, he was completely isolated from the literary ferment of the capital, and his iamb of those years became even closer to the tradition of the eighteenth century. Nevertheless, in his poetry also the stress percentages for the second sylla- ble are below 90% (ranging from 86.7% to 89.9%). However, only in his first period do the stress figures for the fourth syllable exceed 85% – and then only by a slight margin (85.7% and 86.7%), falling in the second period to 81.4% and 81.9%. His fourth syllable is fairly strong, and in his second period the percentage can be as high as 60.2%, The difference between the second and the fourth syllable is in Kjuxel’beker’s poetry always in favor of the second syllable; it varies between 1.6% and 7.7%. Consequently, his four-foot iamb shows not a trace of the new rhythmic drive. On the contrary, in the 1830’s he is developing in a direction directly opposite to that of his contemporaries. Finally let us mention three more poets who appeared in the 1820’s and who were not quite in step with the times. These are Ševyrev, Xomjakov and Lermontov (cf. Table II, 56–60). The first attempts at the four-foot iamb by Ševyrev (1820 and 1825)109 and Xomjakov (1826–1827) still show an eight- eenth-century rhythmic drive: the difference between the second and the fourth syllables is in favor of the second and varies from 3.8% to 5%. The youthful Lermontov’s tetrameter (verses from 1828 and one poem from 1830 — Poslednij syn vol’nosti) strongly resembles the four-foot iamb of the second stage of the transitional period: the second syllable is stronger than the fourth, but only minimally (by 0.4% and 1.4%). In contrast to V. Puškin and Kjuxel’beker, who till their deaths remained faithful to the tradition of the 146 Kiril Taranovsky eighteenth century, Ševyrev, Xomjakov and Lermontov very quickly adopted the new rhythmic drive of Puškin’s poetic school (cf. Table III, 24–39). Thus the four-foot iambs of Vasilij Puškin (1828) and Kjuxel’beker (from the 1830s) represent the last traces of the rhythmic tradition of the eighteenth century. The new bipartite structure with strong icti on the fourth and eighth syl- lables appears in fully developed form after 1820 – simultaneously in a large number of poets. These poets may be divided into two groups: 1) those who freed themselves from the influence of the transitional period and developed a new rhythmic drive (cf. Table III, 1–40); 2) those who began to appear around 1820 and whose iambic tetrameters display the bipartite rhythmic structure from the very beginning (cf. Table III, 41–57). The first group includes Puškin, Vjazemskij, Del’vig, Ryleev, Kozlov, Ševyrev, Xomjakov and Lermontov. Žukovskij – on the basis only of his 1842 iambs — may also be included. In the second group we place Pletnev, Jazykov, Baratynskij, Tjutčev and Poležaev. At the end of the table (Table III, 58–61) we have also mentioned four poets from the second half of the nineteenth century: Nekrasov, Mej, A. K. Tolstoj and Fet. With the first group of poets the percentage of stresses on the second syl- lable varies from 77.5% to 90.5%. In only five examples (all from Vjazemskij) does it fall below 80%, and in only two poets (Kozlov and Xomjakov) does it exceed 90%. In the remaining thirty-three examples the percentage varies from 80% to 90% (or more precisely from 80.6% to 89.9%). The percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable varies from 85.2% to 96.4%. It falls below 90% in only nine cases and is above 90% in thirty-one cases. Moreover, of the nine instances mentioned five are from Vjazemskij. It is evident that the fourth syl- lable has stabilized itself as a strong ictus. The difference between the second and the fourth is always in favor of the fourth and varies from 2.6% to 12.8%. In only eight examples (out of forty) is it below 5% (Puškin, Vjazemskij, Kozlov before 1825; Xomjakov and Lermontov’s early lyrics); in nine examples the difference is greater than 10%. The fourth syllable is thus as a rule noticeably stronger than the second. The percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable var- ies from 38.9% to 54.8%. In only one case does it fall below 40% (Ševyrev); in five it is above 50%. Thus, in the vast majority of cases (i. e. in thirty-four) this percentage varies between 40% and 50%. Let us compare the averages for the first group of poets with the averages for the second stage of the transitional period in order to bring out more clearly the evolution of the four-foot iamb after 1820 (cf. Diagram XIII): 147Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Syllables: 2 4 6 8 Second stage of the transitional period: 87.7 87.7 43.2 100 Poets after 1820 who have adopted the new rhythmic drive:110 84.4 92.2 46.0 100 As we see, the percentage of stresses on the second syllable shows a decrease after 1820, while the percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable rises con- siderably. The sixth syllable, on the other hand, has not become weaker; on the contrary, the percentage of stresses on it has even increased.111 Whereas in the transitional period the percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable was rising mainly at the expense of the sixth, in the tetrameters of the poets who have adopted the new rhythmic drive after 1820 the fourth syllable has gained ground not at the expense of the sixth syllable, but of the second syllable. This fact is particularly important for our understanding of the evolution of the four-foot Russian iamb in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The entire problem will be further discussed in connection with the development of other binary meters.Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Broken line: the second stage of the transitional period Solid line: poets after 1820 who adopted the new rhythmic drive Diagram XIII 148 Kiril Taranovsky In the poets from the second group, i.e. those who started after 1820 with the bipartite rhythmic structure already formed, and in the four poets studied from the second half of the nineteenth century (cf. Table III, 41–61), the per- centage of stresses on the second syllable varies between 75.6% and 88.2%; in five examples it is above 80%, but it never reaches 90%. The percentage of stresses on the fourth syllable varies from 89.2% to 100%. Only in one case (the early Tjutčev) is this percentage below 90%. In all other cases it is always above that figure. In fact, the fourth syllable quite often comes close to being a constant (e.g., in Jazykov, Baratynskij and Poležaev) and in one instance (with Poležaev) this actually occurs. The difference between the fourth and second syllables varies from 6.9% to 23.1%. The low figure occurs, of course, in Tjutčev (again in his early poetry from 1820 to 1840) and the high figure in Baratynskij. In only five cases (out of twenty-one) is its percentage below 10%, while in three it even exceeds 20% (once in Jazykov and twice in Baratynskij). The percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable with this group varies from 24.6% to 51.5%; as we see, this ictus is the least stable. In six cases the percent- age of stresses on the sixth syllable is below 30%, in eight it varies between 30% and 40%, in six it slightly exceeds 40% (going up to 44%). The only case exceeding 50% is found in the early work of Baratynskij (1819–1820). This high figure is, therefore, quite exceptional. Only in Jazykov and Poležaev does this percentage fall below 30%; this is characteristic of these two poets, whose four-foot trochees also show the weakest penultimate ictus. The foregoing materials suffice to show that with the poets of this group the ictus on the sec- ond and sixth syllables, especially the latter, has become weaker. The contrast between the weaker and stronger icti has increased and the bipartite rhythmic structure has become even more pronounced than it was with the first group of poets, i.e. those poets who adopted the bipartite structure in mid-career, having initially employed the rhythmic drive of the transitional period that failed to take hold. A comparison of the averages for the two groups makes this abundantly clear: Syllables: 2 4 6 8 Poets who adopted the new rhythmic drive: 84.4 92.2 46.0 100 Poets who used it from the beginning:112 82.1 96.8 34.6 100 Diagram XIV clearly shows that the bipartite rhythmic line for the post-1820 poets has sharper angles than the rhythmic line representing their mostly older contemporaries who had paid their tribute to the rhythmic pattern of the transitional period. 149Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Broken line: poets who adopted the new rhythmic drive after 1820 Solid line: new poets after 1820 who had started with that drive Diagram XIV. The 4-ft. iamb of the 19th century What we have so far observed in our study of the iambic tetrameter from the 1740’s into the second half of the nineteenth century (Diagrams XI–XIV) is a gradual change in the rhythm, in effect a series of small, almost imperceptible changes. However, if we compare the initial and the final phases of this process, we shall see that the difference between the eighteenth and the nineteenth- century rhythmic patterns is very great: Syllables: 2 4 6 8 Eighteenth century: 93.2 79.7 53.2 100 New poets after 1820: 82.1 96.8 34.6 100 While the percentage of stresses on the sixth syllable has fallen by almost 20%, the percentages for the second and the fourth syllable have reversed their posi- tions; the lines on the diagram which connect the second and fourth syllables intersect almost at right angles (cf. Diagram XV). 150 Kiril Taranovsky Диаграмма 8. Диаграмма 9. Диаграмма 10. Диаграмма 11. Диаграмма 12. Диаграмма 13. Диаграмма 14. Диаграмма 15. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 70 80 90 100 2 4 6 8 Broken line: 4-ft. iamb of the 18th century Solid line: new poets after 1820 Diagram XV From a comparison of the two rhythmic lines we can obtain a picture of the main characteristics of the Russian four-foot iamb. In its rhythmic drive the strong icti are more clearly defined as such than the weak. Of the weak icti only the penultimate is really characterized by the pyrrhic foot, which plays a far more important role in the nineteenth than in the eighteenth century. On the basis of the strong and weak icti, in the eighteenth century the beginning and end of the line are the strong points, the end more so than the beginning. This is due not only to the 100% stress figure for the eighth syllable, but also to the fact that the eighth syllable is preceded by the weakest ictus in the line (on the sixth syllable), whereas the strong beginning of the line (the first ictus) is produced by a mere toning down of the following ictus (on the fourth syl- lable). The middle and the end of the line (fourth and eighth syllables) are the strong points of the nineteenth century, and here again the end of the line is stronger than the middle, the second ictus deriving its strength from a toning down of the first. While, therefore, weak and strong icti do indeed alternate in the bipartite structure of the nineteenth-century four-foot iamb, the contrast between the penultimate and the last ictus is much greater than between the first and the second. In this respect the bipartite structure of the four-foot iamb differs considerably from its counterpart in the four-foot trochee. 151Russian Binary Meters. Part Two As we have seen, the new bipartite rhythmic structure of the four-foot iamb was already fully developed at the beginning of the 1820’s in the work of a large number of poets: Puškin, Vjazemskij, Del’vig, Ryleev, Pletnëv, Baratynskij, Jazykov and others. No single poet can claim the credit for this new develop- ment.113 This new drive became characteristic of the Russian four-foot iamb and remains so to this day. The validity of this statement can be confirmed even without statistical analysis; it is sufficient to read carefully the tetrameters of any of the more recent poets. Moreover, Andrej Belyj did demonstrate this statistically, not only in some of the poets which we too have analyzed, but also in Benediktov, K. Pavlova, Polonskij, A. Majkov, Slučevskij and Nadson in the nineteenth century, and in Merežkovskij, Sologub, V. Ivanov, Blok and Gorodeckij in the twentieth century.114 Up to the present the bipartite struc- ture has remained asymmetrical; the first ictus is always considerably stronger than the third. As is the case in all binary meters, the rhythmic drive of the four-foot iamb is created by its different rhythmic variations or figures; the more or less frequent use of this or that figure produces differences in the rhythmic drive. In a four-foot iamb, there are only seven such variations. They are as follows: Ordinal No. No. of icti Stressed Syllables Example I 4 2, 4, 6, 8 Odním dyšá, odnó ljubjá II 3 –, 4, 6, 8 Beregovój eë granít III 3 2, –, 6, 8 Na lákovom polú moëm IV 3 2, 4, –, 8 Bylá užásnaja porá V 2 2, –, –, 8 Izvólila Elisavét VI 2 –, 4, –, 8 Porfironósnaja vdová VII 2 –, –, 6, 8 I velosipedíst letít Theoretically, an eighth variation is also possible: three pyrrhics following each other with a single stress on the eighth syllable. But this never occurs. Nor is the seventh figure found in its pure form.115 Thus, the four-foot iamb is in practice limited to only six variations. As might be expected, the difference in the rhythmic drive of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is accompanied by a difference in the use of the various figures. In the eighteenth century the basic rhythmic drive is main- tained by the first, third and fourth figures. Taken together, these three figures normally account for about 90% of all lines, while the remaining three make up only about 10% (cf. Table II, 5–26). The percentage for the first figure (all 152 Kiril Taranovsky four stresses) varies in the eighteenth century from 20.6% to 46.2%. The mini- mum was found in Kozodavlеv, whom we have already mentioned as deviating from the norms of the remaining poets of the eighteenth century. Leaving aside Kozodavlеv, in eleven cases the percentage is under 30%, in eight it is between 30% and 40%, and only in three (Petrov, Nikolev and Krylov) does it exceed 40%. As we see, the average should be somewhere around 30%, and in fact the precise average for the whole eighteenth century is 31.1%. Thus in the eighteenth century just under one third of all four-foot iambs have all four icti stressed, i. e. fully implement the metrical scheme. The percentage for the third figure varies in the eighteenth century from 10.4% to 26.9%. The minimum is found in Kotel’nickij (1795) and the maximum in Lomonosov (1762–1764). This is quite understandable, for we have seen that of all the poets of the eighteenth century Lomonosov most often leaves unstressed the fourth syllable, while Kotel’nickij stresses this syllable most often. As a rule the third figure is less common than the first (in only one example, Lomonosov’s 1762–1764 tetrameters, is its percentage higher than the percentage for the first figure). The percentage for the fourth figure varies in the eighteenth century from 33.7% to 54%. It falls below 40% in eight cases, in twelve it is between 40% and 50%, and in only two (Kotel’nickij and Kozodavlev) does it exceed 50%. The average for the whole eighteenth century is 41.9%. Usually it is the most frequently employed variation (in seventeen cases out of twenty-two, while in the remaining five cases the first is most frequently employed). As we see, in the eighteenth century the most widely used is the variation which omits the stress on the penultimate ictus (IV), followed by that which fully implements the metrical scheme (I), and in third place is the variation which omits the stress on the second ictus (III). While the first figure, as noted, fully implements the metrical scheme, the third and the fourth together produce a “single-swing” rhythmic drive which imparts strength to the beginning and the end of the line. The sum of the third and the fourth figures in the eighteenth century is almost always above 50% of all lines. Of the remaining three figures, whose sum, as noted, very seldom exceeds 10%, the least common is usually the fifth figure (in sixteen cases out of twenty- two). That is precisely the one which creates the “single-swing” rhythmic drive in its pure form (“Izvólila Elisavét”). Its percentage varies between 0.4% and 4.1%; in eight examples it is below and in a majority of poets it is below 2.5%. Only in Osipov is its percentage somewhat higher (4.1%). The low percentages for this figure permit us to draw two conclusions: 1) the poets of the eight- eenth century avoid two unstressed feet next to each other, and: 2) they are not actually seeking to create the “single-swing” drive in pure form; thus it is more important for them to stress the strong icti at the beginning and the end 153Russian Binary Meters. Part Two of the line than to insist on weakening the weak icti. The percentages for the second figure range in the eighteenth century from 0.4% to 7.4%, and in only two cases are above 5%. Similarly, the percentages for the sixth figure are also quite low (ranging between 1.5% and 6%, and in only two cases exceeding 5%). It is obvious that these two figures somehow run counter to the spirit of the rhythmic drive of the eighteenth century. It is interesting that the poets of the eighteenth century in their handling of the two figures with two unstressed icti (V and VI) show a preference for the sixth figure, which completely destroys the “single-swing” drive, rather than for the fifth, which reflects this drive in its purest form. Only in the early Lomonosov (1745–1747) is the percentage for the fifth figure higher than the percentage for the sixth; in the remaining twenty examples the fifth figure is more rare. This is convincing evidence that these poets are less concerned to avoid lines with only two stressed icti than they are to avoid two consecutive unstressed feet. The nineteenth century, after 1820, shows a different picture. In the four- foot iamb with a bipartite rhythmic drive the use of the various rhythmic figures changes accordingly. In the nineteenth century a major role is played, on the one hand, once again by the first figure (which fully implements the metrical scheme) and, on the other hand, by the second, fourth and sixth fig- ures (which produce a bipartite rhythmic oscillation). In the poets after 1820 the percentage for the first figure (cf. Table III, 1–61) ranges between 17.3% and 40.6%. The high figure is found in Baratynskij’s early work (1819–1820), this being the only case in the nineteenth century in which such a high per- centage is found for the first figure (even the poets of the transitional period fail to show figures over 40%). The percentage falls below 20% only in Jazykov (1825–1828 — 17.3%) and Poležaev (Čir-Jurt, 1832 — 19.7%)116. These exam- ples apart, the percentage ranges in thirty-two cases between 20% and 30%, and in twenty-six cases between 30% and 40%. It is clearly evident that in the poets who in mid-career adopted the new bipartite structure the percentages for the first figure are considerably higher than with the poets who appeared after 1820 and started straight off with the bipartite structure. In the first group, the percentage for the first figure varies from 24.5% to 38.5%, and in the sec- ond (if we disregard the exceptionally high figure in Baratynskij) from 17.3% to 30.9%, exceeding 30% in only two cases. After 1820 the fourth figure is again the most frequently used. Its percent- age ranges between 34.4% and 64.4% — with the first group of poets between 34.4% and 51%, and with the second between 42.8% and 64.4%. Its percentage falls below 40% in only eight cases — and then, as might be expected, only with poets who had not employed the bipartite rhythmic drive from the very begin- ning (of these eight examples, five are found in Vjazemskij). In thirty-five cases 154 Kiril Taranovsky the percentage for the fourth figure varies between 40% and 50%; in twelve between 50% and 56.1%; and in six examples (all from Jazykov and Poležaev) it is above 60%. These figures suffice to show that the use of the fourth figure is more frequent here than it was in the eighteenth century. It is without a single exception the most frequently employed variation in the four-foot iamb with bipartite rhythmic structure.117 The percentage far the second figure after 1820 varies from 3.1% to 12.8%, and falls below 5% in only four cases (out of sixty-one). In cases where the percentage for the second figure is low, this is usually compensated by a high percentage for the sixth figure, which also omits the stress on the first ictus. The percentage for the sixth figure ranges from 3.5% to 15.3% and is below 5% in only four cases. Here too a small percentage for this figure is as a rule offset by a high percentage for the second figure.118 From this it follows that for the bipartite rhythmic structure in any given poet the percentages for the second or sixth figure are, taken alone, less decisive than the total percent- ages for the two figures combined. In the post-1820 tetrameter the combined percentages range from 9.5% to 22.5%, and in only two cases (out of sixty- one) fall below 10%. In comparison then with the eighteenth century, there has occurred a considerable increase in the use of these two figures, since in the eighteenth century their combined total ranges from 1.9% to 11.8%, and in only two cases is slightly over 10% (in Kapnist 10.7%, and in Kostrov 11.8%). The sixth figure reflects the bipartite rhythmic structure in its pure form (“Porfironósnaja vdová”). For this reason the post-1820 poets view it with favor: in twenty cases its percentage exceeds 10%. The high for the sixth figure (15.3%) is found in Tjutčev (1844–1873); thus he, more than any other poet, gives us the bipartite rhythmic structure in its pure form. In thirty-five cases (out of sixty-one) the sixth figure occupies third place in terms of frequency percentages (first place going to the fourth figure and second place to the first figure). This is particularly characteristic of those poets who began to write around 1820 and adopted from the start the new rhythmic drive: in this group of poets in eighteen cases out of twenty-one the sixth figure is the third strong- est. Whereas in the eighteenth century this figure played practically no role at all (its percentage ranges from 1.5% to 6%), it has now become an important factor in the rhythmic drive. As for the third and fifth figures, in the four-foot iamb with bipartite oscil- lation these figures disrupt the rhythmic drive and represent for the verse of the nineteenth (and of course the twentieth) century a kind of dissonance. As we shall see, as early as 1822 the poet Pletnëv recommends that lines without a strong stress (rešitel’noe udarenie) on the fourth syllable be avoided. After 1820 the percentage for the third figure varies between 13.4% and zero. Its 155Russian Binary Meters. Part Two percentage exceeds 10% in only seven examples, of which four are found in Vjazemskij who, as we might have expected, is responsible for the high of 13.5%. The third figure is least used by Jazykov, Baratynskij and Poležaev. As in the eighteenth century, the fifth figure is the rarest combination; now, how- ever, its percentage is minute by comparison with the percentages for the other figures. In thirteen of our examples it does not occur at all, in forty-two its percentage does not even reach 1%, and in the remaining six examples it var- ies between 1% and 2.7% (five of these six examples coming from Vjazemskij and one from Žukovskij). This still more patent avoidance of the fifth figure in the nineteenth century provides convincing confirmation of our stated thesis that the Russian binary meter shows resistance to the omission of two adjacent stresses.119 The difference in the use of different figures in the eighteenth and nine- teenth centuries may be best illustrated by comparing the averages for the eighteenth century with the averages of those nineteenth-century poets who were not influenced by the transitional period: Figures: I II III IV V VI 18th century: 31.1 3.4 18.7 41.9 1.5 3.4 19th century: 24.9 6.7 3.0 54.0 0.2 11.2 As we see, the third and the sixth figures have undergone the greatest change: while the percentage for the third has diminished sixfold, the percentage for the sixth has increased threefold. Similarly, the percentage for the second fig- ure has doubled. The already small percentage for the fifth figure has become quite negligeable. Equally apparent is the considerable drop in the percentage for the first figure and the increase for the fourth. The figures show that in the work of the nineteenth-century poets who have not experienced the influence of the transitional period, roughly one quarter of their lines implement fully the four-stress metrical scheme; somewhat more than one tenth of their lines produce a bipartite rhythmic oscillation; and more than one half omit the stress on the penultimate ictus. On the basis of this comparison we can state a priori that the greatest fluc- tuation in the use of the second, fourth and sixth figures must have taken place in the transitional period, particularly in its second stage.120 The evolution of all the figures of the four-foot iamb can be best seen by comparing their aver- ages for all periods studied: 156 Kiril Taranovsky Figures: I II III IV V VI 18th century: 31.1 3.4 18.7 41.9 1.5 3.4 First stage of trans’l period: 32.3 3.6 13.1 46.3 1.0 3.7 Second stage of trans’l period: 27.2 5.2 10.9 48.3 1.4 7.1 Poets after 1820 a) who adopted the new drive: 31.0 7.6 7.4 45.6 0.4 8.0 b) who used it from the beginning: 24.9 6.7 3.0 54.0 0.2 11.2 By comparing these percentages it is easy to see that the frequency of the third and fifth figures slowly decreases, while that of the second and sixth gradually increases. As far as the first and the fourth figures are concerned, their devel- opment is not so clear-cut. In the first stage of the transitional period the use of the four-stress line (I) is close to that observed for the eighteenth century (the small increase in the percentage for the first figure in this stage is in fact accidental). However, in the second stage the less frequent use of lines with all four stresses is perfectly obvious. With the poets who started with the drive of the transitional period and later adopted the post-1820 bipartite structure we note a tendency to still use four-stress lines (I) in order to reinforce the metrical scheme in the face of the new rhythmic patterns which to their ears must have seemed fluid and not very clearly marked. However, the tetrameters of the poets who started after 1820 show a further drop in the percentages for Figure I. These poets tend, more than their post-1814 predecessors, to avoid the four-stress line (I) — because they feel more acutely the bipartite rhythmic oscillation which they themselves did the most to develop. If we look at the nineteenth century as a whole we note that after 1814 Russian poets use lines with four stresses considerably less frequently than in the eighteenth century. As for the fourth figure, its percentages are considerably higher in all periods of the nineteenth century than in the eighteenth century. This means that, to a far greater extent than their eighteenth-century predecessors, the nineteenth- century poets omit the third stress in the line, thus insisting on the weakness of the penultimate ictus. This trend is evident particularly with the new post- 1820 poets in whose work the percentage for the fourth figure rises to 54% of all lines. However, in poets who after 1820 adopted the new rhythmic drive the percentage for the fourth figure is somewhat lower than in the transitional period. This phenomenon is tied in with the greater frequency with which they employ the first figure, i. e. with their tendency to reinforce the metrical scheme by means of four-stress lines (I). 157Russian Binary Meters. Part Two As far as the average stress load of the icti in the four-foot iamb is con- cerned, its percentage varies from 74.5% to 85.9%. It is above 85% in only two cases in Nikolev (1790 — 85.9%) and Krylov (1793 — 85.3%). It is below 77% in only five cases: in Del’vig (1814 — 75.9% and 1817–1819 — 74.5%), Žukovskij (1818–1819  — 76.9%), Jazykov (1825–1828  — 75.%), and in Poležaev (1830 — 76.8%). Usually, therefore, the average stress load of the icti remains in the vicinity of 80%; i. e. about one fifth of all icti in the Russian four- foot iamb are unstressed. By comparison, as previously noted, the four-foot trochee as a rule stresses only 75% of all icti. Looking at the work of individual poets, we note a certain parallelism between their four-foot iambs and four- foot trochees in respect to the average load of the icti. For example, Krylov’s four-foot trochee carries a very high number of stresses, while Jazykov’s and Poležaev’s carry relatively very few. The same is true in the four-foot iamb. Both in the four-foot trochee and in the four-foot iamb the average stress load of the icti is higher in the eighteenth century than in the nineteenth. This can be illustrated by comparing the averages for all poets of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. While in the eighteenth century the average stress load on the icti amounts to 81.5%, in the nineteenth century its percentage is down to 80.7% in those poets who switched from the “single-swing” to the bipartite rhythmic structure, and in those poets who started from the beginning with the new bipartite structure it has dropped again — to 78.4%. However, to us, the four-foot iamb of the nineteenth century appears much lighter than one could conclude on the basis of the above percentages. This can be explained, on the one hand, by the fact that in the nineteenth century the percentage of monosyllabic stressed words in metrically weak syllables has been reduced (this was discussed in Section 3), and, on the other hand, by the fact that in the eighteenth century the pyrrhics were distributed between the second and the third feet, whereas in the nineteenth century they are more or less con- centrated on the third foot where they are juxtaposed to the strongest ictus (the fixed stress on the eighth syllable) and therefore make themselves very strongly felt. 158 Kiril Taranovsky Notes (5. The Four-foot Trochee) 71 True, Lomonosov had predecessors. The pastors Glück and Paus had earlier attempted to translate Lutheran hymns into Russian while retaining the origi- nal German, i.e. tonic, meter. On their work see Peretc 1902. The efforts of Paus and Glück could exert no influence, not only because they remained in manuscript form, until Peretc published them at the beginning of this century, but also because the pastors did not have an adequate command of the langage and often stressed Russian words in a quite arbitrary fashion or otherwise dis- torted them. Even if, as Peretc attempts to prove, Trediakovskij had had their manuscripts in his hands, he could have learned nothing from them. Only when Lomonosov, as the result of first-hand study in German, had grasped the essence of tonic metrics, could this system be applied to Russian verse. And the excellence of Lomonosov’s very first efforts bears witness to his brilliance. 72 Lomonosov 1895 [1739]. 73 Trediakovskij 1735. 74 In his 1735 Sposob Trediakovskij, doubtless following the model of French verse, recommended that these meters have only masculine endings before the caesura; however, he could not accept masculine rhymes since they were alien to the Russian thirteen- and eleven-syllable lines, and in this respect he showed himself a conservative. 75 Trediakovskij 1849 [1752]. 76 We cite here only the most recent literature on this question: Bondi 1935; Berkov 1936. 77 Trediakovskij, Lomonosov, Sumarokov 1744. 78 Only 144 lines: 1) the psalm “Gospodi, kto obitaet” (1747), 2) “Razgovor s Anakreonom” (apparently also 1747), and 3) “Gimn borode” (1757). 79 The second hemistich also has a pronounced trochaic character; the distri- bution of stresses is as follows: 159Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Syllables: 8 10 12 % stressed: 79.6 55.8 100 Our study of this work did not take into account lines with shifted stresses. There are only seventeen such lines, as against 389 regular trochees; the former cannot, then, affect the overall rhythmic drive of Trediakovskij’s thirteen-syl- lable verse. 80 Timofeev 1931: 148. 81 Here Timofeev takes some liberties with his figures: as we have seen, the even syllables are also to be found under stress at times in Trediakovskij. 82 Bondi claims that Timofeev’s statistics do not correspond to his own and appear to be “based on a misunderstanding” (Bondi 1935: 94, fn.). 83 Kantemir 1868 [1744]. 84 It is known, however, that Kantemir had carefully studied the 1735 edition of Trediakovskij’s Sposob. 85 When these stanzas are sung the quarter-note in the last (whole) measure breaks down into two eighth-notes. 86 Emphasis supplied. 87 Kolessa 1906, 71(3): 85–86. 88 Ibid.: 87. 89 The Czech meter generally displays a tendency diametrically opposite to the Russian: the icti on the first and fifth syllables are strong, while those on the third and seventh syllables are weak. See the stress diagrams for the poem “O smrtedlnosti” (14th cent.) and the trochaic eight-syllable line of Vrchlický in Jakobson 1924; cf. also the data for Mácha’s verse (Jakobson 1938: 227). In the Old Polish meter the strong icti are the first and penultimate (on the first and seventh syllables), while the internal icti are weak (see the stress diagrams in Hrabák 1937). 160 Kiril Taranovsky 90 Jakobson 1924: 280. 91 Unfortunately we have not examined the rhythmic structure of the German four-foot trochee from the first half of the eighteenth century, since much of the requisite material was unavailable to us. In particular we regret not having studied the verse of Gottsched. The statistics which follow suffice, however, to give an overall picture of the German meter. For Bürger our sample was three poems: 1) “Das hohe Lied von der Einzigen”, 2) “Elegie”, 3) “Die Nachtfeier der Venus” (900 lines in all); for Goethe – all four-foot trochees from the cycles Leider, Geistliche Lieder and Balladen (according to the 1887 Weimar edition, vol. I, 704 lines); for Schiller – three ballads: 1) “Hero und Leander”, 2) “Das Siegesfest”, 3) “Kassandra” (544 lines); and for Heine – Romanzero, Drittes Buch: Hebräischen Melodien (1488 lines). 92 A comparative study of medieval Latin and German liturgical verse must naturally include both Catholic and Protestant poetry, particularly the latter. This, of course, does not exhaust the question of the origins of the German literary four-foot trochee, which obviously took shape under the most varied influences. Thus, German poets of the eighteenth century (Gottsched, Gleim et al.), in translating Greek Anacreontic poetry, used unrhymed trochaic octa- syllables to render the meter of the original – the so-called Anacreontic line (anaklomenoi): ∪ ∪ — ∪ — ∪ — — (e.g.: ἄγε δὴ φέρ᾿ ἡμὶν ὦ παῖ κελέβην, ὅκως ἄμυστιν προπίω, τὰ μὲν δέκ᾿ ἐγχέας ὕδατος, τὰ πέντε δ᾿ οἴνου κυάθους ὡς ἀνυβρίστως ἀνὰ δηὖτε βασσαρήσω.) One easily wonders whether these imitations may not have given the four-foot trochee a new rhythmic drive, with the first ictus considerably weakened and the remaining icti nearly equal in strength – the rhythmic drive characteris- tic of Schiller’s verse. Similarly, it is known that German poets from Herder to Heine used the trochaic eight-syllable line in imitation of various forms of the Spanish four-foot trochee; again, the latter may conceivably have had some effect on the rhythmic structure of the German line. A study devoted to all the problems mentioned here (along with a good many others) would 161Russian Binary Meters. Part Two certainly yield significant results, shedding light not merely on the develop- ment of German verse, but on the evolution of syllabo-tonic verse in other European traditions as well. On the origin of the German four-foot trochee cf. Minor 1902: 221 ff. 93 To be sure, Lomonosov was translating from the French; however, he had obviously made a thorough study of German metrics and read a sufficient number of German lines before deciding to replace the French syllabic line with the four-foot trochee after the German model. 94 Actually, the high stress percentages for individual syllables in Katenin may be attributed to German influence: the texts which we have analyzed are mostly translations from German poets. 95 Owing to its transitional character, Katenin’s poetry was not included in our averages. Karamzin’s poetry and Puškin’s Bova were excluded on account of the compulsory dactylic clausula, which gives their verse a somewhat different syntactic structure. The averages for the eighteenth century were calculated on the basis of 3071 lines, and the averages for the nineteenth century on the basis of 7600 lines. 96 There are cases, however, where the stressing of the fifth syllable at the expense of the first may be viewed as a specific rhythmic tendency. An example is Kol’cov’s four-foot trochee with a dactylic clausula (the latter occasionally stressed on the ninth syllable), for which Astaxova calculates the following stress percentages (Astaxova 1926: 66): Stressed syllables: 1 3 5 7 9 Realized icti: 29 100 61 100 13 Here the fifth syllable carries twice the stress load of the first. Admittedly, these figures must be accepted with some reserve; as we shall see, Astaxova’s statistics are not completely reliable. 97 This excerpt was purposely chosen in order that we might contrast it with Poležaev’s rhythmically symmetrical verse. Other excerpts from Deržavin are apt to show the bipartite rhythmic structure, albeit much less prominently than Poležaev’s verse. 162 Kiril Taranovsky 98 From a purely theoretical standpoint, an additional, eighth variation is possi- ble, with stress only on the seventh syllable: ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ ––́ [∪]; in practice, this variation never occurs. In the first place, three consecutive pyrrhics would be highly unusual for Russian verse; secondly, it is difficult in general to find a stress unit with six pre-tonic syllables, such as we have, e. g., in the following invented lines: A ͜ na ͜ velosipedíste Býlo čërnoe pal’tó 99 In addition, the eighteenth-century four-foot trochee is apt to seem “heavier” since, as we noted in Chapter III, it contains a larger number of stressed mono- syllabic words on its even syllables. (6. The Four-foot Iamb) 100 See the table in my brief article Taranovsky 1939. 101 Jarxo, Romanovič, Lapšina 1934. 102 Our statistics are based on 86,976 lines; Tomaševskij analyzed over 5,000 lines (Evgenij Onegin), Andrej Belyj nearly 18,000. 103 Our remarks concerning the pastors Glück and Paus in the last chapter also hold good for the four-foot iamb. 104 Johann Christian Günther: Auf den zwischen Ihro Röm. Kayserl. Majestät und der Pforte 1718 geschlossenen Frieden (500 lines). 105 Our sample for Goethe was twenty-seven poems from the first three vol- umes of his works (1887 Weimar edition), and for Schiller three ballads: Der Ring des Polykrates, Die Kraniche des Ibykus, Der Kampf mit dem Drachen. 106 These averages are based on Table II, entries 5–26 (10,928 lines); cf. Andrej Belyj’s statistics (Table IV, 1–7 and introductory notes). Belyj studied the verse of Lomonosov, Deržavin, Bogdanovič, Ozerov, Dmitriev, Neledinskij-Meleckij and Kapnist. Our statistics are in full agreement with his. According to Belyj, the percentage of stresses on the second syllable is always above 90%, the percentage for the fourth syllable varies between 76.7% and 83.2%, and the 163Russian Binary Meters. Part Two percentage for the sixth between 54.4%and 62.1%. Belyj also observed stress values for the sixth syllable above 60% in two poets — Kapnist and Ozerov. 107 The averages for the first phase of the transitional period are based on Table II, entries 27–33 (4,691 lines). 108 Averages based on Table II, entries 34–50 (14,884 lines). 109 Except for one epistle from 1820, Ševyrëv’s pre-1825 poetry has not been published. 110 Averages based on Table III, entries 1–40 (29,621 lines). 111 This increase is especially notable in Puškin. While in his lyrics from 1814 to 1820 the stress percentage for the sixth syllable falls from 38.3% to 34.4%, after 1820 it is always above 40%. 112 Averages based on Table III, entries 41–61 (18,445 lines). 113 One might imagine that Baratynskij played a significant role here, for his 1819–1820 lyrics already show a quite pronounced bipartite rhythmic struc- ture (cf. Table III: 45). However, the great majority of the lyrics analyzed date from 1820. It must be remembered, moreover, that even Puškin’s 1819–1820 lyrics have this structure; they are entered in Table II rather than Table III primarily because Puškin’s narrative poem from the same period (Ruslan i Ljudmila, 1817–1820) still does not show the new rhythmic drive (cf. Table II: 44 and 45). Finally, we have only a small number of lines by Baratynskij from the period 1819–1820, and at this time he had not yet achieved sufficient recognition as a poet to exert any influence on contemporary poetry. 114 Cf. Table IV (pp. 195–197) and introductory notes (pp. 174–176). Belyj’s statistics show clearly that the four-foot iamb of certain poets from the sec- ond half of the nineteenth century (e.g., Polonskij, Majkov, Slučevskij, and that of the Symbolists as well, has closer rhythmic affinities to Puškin’s and Lermontov’s verse than to Jazykov’s and Poležaev’s; we noted a similar situation for the four-foot trochee. In most Symbolist poets we observe a high percent- age of stresses on the sixth syllable (over 50%); in this feature especially their rhythmic line differs from the nineteenth-century average. 164 Kiril Taranovsky 115 To quote Belyj (1910: 295): “We found this type of line [∪ ∪ | ∪ ∪ | ∪ — | ∪ —] only once in its pure form – in a poem by Karolina Pavlova dedicated to Jazykov: since we do not have the book, we cannot cite the line in question. We find only one such line in Puškin, and its resemblance to Pavlova’s is only partial: ‘Ešče ne perestáli tópat’’ (Evgenij Onegin). If one reads this line: ‘Eščë | ne perestáli tópat’’, then its logical stress is lost. In my own verse this figure occurs in the unsuccessful line: ‘Xot’ i ne bez predubeždén’ja’. Here is another line, invented on the spur of the moment, which implements the given figure: ‘I velosipedίst letίt’”. The line by Pavlova to which Belyj refers reads: “ polugorodskίx poléj”. Even here, strictly speaking, this figure does not occur in its pure form, since we have a compound which may receive a secondary stress on its first syllable; in the latter case we obtain the third figure. We have found several similar lines which may be read so as to implement the seventh figure. One such line is Sumarokov’s “Kolenopreklonén’e, lést’”, where again we have a compound allowing a secondary stress on its second syllable. Deržavin’s line “Ili velikolépnym cúgom” would today be read so as to implement the seventh figure; in the eighteenth-century literary language, however, ili was stressed on the second syllable. Finally, we have the following line from the early Tjutčev: “Kak by pogruženó v vesné”; here the question arises whether the poet would not have stressed the particle by. Actually, Belyj’s ad hoc exam- ple is our only instance of this variation in its pure form. As for Belyj’s line “Xot’ ͜ i ͜ ne ͜ bez ͜  predubeždén’ja”, this illustrates not the seventh but the eighth figure. 116 Jazykov and Poležaev also showed the smallest percentages for the first figure in the four-foot trochee. Among the poets of the transitional period, the percentage for this figure also falls below 20% in Del’vig (1814 — 16.4%; cf. Table II: 33). 117 In the transitional period, too, this is the most frequent variation. Only in one case — Kjuxel’beker’s verse for 1831 — does its percentage fall a fraction below the percentage for the first figure (cf. Table II: 53). 118 Thus, for example, in Jazykov’s verse for 1823–1824 the percentage for the second figure is 3.1% and the percentage for the sixth 12.1%; conversely, in Baratynskij’s 1819–1820 verse the percentage for the sixth figure is 3.5% and the percentage for the second 8.3%. 165Russian Binary Meters. Part Two 119 This does not mean that poets may not at times use such lines intention- ally, for stylistic purposes; cf. Timofeev 1951: 219–220. In his article Timofeev shows that the fifth figure occurs only once in Puškin’s Graf Nulin, and then at a moment of great suspense — when the count appears in Natal’ja Pavlovna’s bedroom and gets the following welcome: Daët — poščëčinu. Dá, dá, Poščëčinu, da ͜ ved’ ͜ kakúju! This “unusual configuration of the line,” Timofeev writes, “acts as a kind of rhythmic italics, highlighting the sense at a critical point in the text.” 120 Among the individual poets of the transitional period Žukovskij deserves special mention: in his 1818–1820 works the percentage for the sixth figure exceeds 10% for the first time (cf. Table II, 35–36). Notes to the Statistical Tables General Remarks 1. The statistical method applied in this book was originally used by Andrej Belyj in his Simvolizm (Belyj 1910). We emphasize this fact since Belyj’s contri- butions to the science of verse today tend to be forgotten. It is true that Belyj’s statistical method is somewhat elementary: he counted only the stress omis- sions (pyrrhics) on different syllables of the four-foot iamb, together with the individual rhythmic variations of this meter. Belyj’s method was perfected by Tomaševskij, who also applied it to phrasing (the distribution of boundaries between accentual units). Tomaševskij was the first to illustrate his statistics by means of diagrams – another fact which tends nowadays to be forgotten. 2. Our statistics are based on a maximally stressed line: all stresses are taken into account, even in cases where they might be de-emphasized in read- ing. In this we follow Tomaševskij, who considered the equalization of all stresses on metrically strong syllables one of the prerequisites of the study of poetic rhythm, and who classified all syllables as either stressed or stress- less, without differentiating between strong and weak accents. “In doubtful cases,” Tomaševskij writes, “I have adhered to the following rule: a word is considered stressed so long as its stress does not contradict the sense of the utterance” (Tomaševskij 1929: 96). Experience has shown that such “doubtful cases”, where it is unclear whether or not a word must be stressed, are quite 166 Kiril Taranovsky rare and have no effect on our overall statistics; Tomaševskij’s approach thus has all the advantages of an objective method. In the notes to individual tables it will be shown to what extent our statistics agree with those of other investi- gators of Russian verse. The style of delivery discussed in Section IV, whereby the stresses on individual syllables are intentionally de-emphasized, finds no application in our statistics, for in the final analysis it is always subjective. 3. As for the boundaries between accentual units, we have counted only those which follow a unit whose stress falls on a metrically strong syllable. This means that in lines which have a stressed monosyllabic word on a metri- cally weak syllable, only the boundary preceding the given word is taken into account. Data on word boundary distribution are given for all poets studied. 4. The number of lines analyzed from a given text does not always corre- spond to the total number of lines in the text – this for several reasons. First, lines which contain a deviant number of feet or are defective in some other respect were naturally left out of account. Second, in certain cases we had no access to lines which the censor deleted, or which the author or publisher for one reason or other removed from the original text. Finally, in dealing with fairly extensive texts (especially those with several hundred lines or more) some lines were apt to go unnoticed. In such cases we did not always take the trouble to figure in the lines which were accidentally missed, since we were satisfied that such lines are always quite few in number and do not appreciably affect the final statistics. 5. The percentage values given in our tables have been checked over in different ways so as to reduce the likelihood of error; what errors still remain are apt to be altogether insignificant, amounting to no more than decimals. 6.  The dates given for certain texts in our tables are sometimes only approximate. Where we were able to ascertain the year in which a work was composed, we gave that year; where this was not possible, we gave the year in which the work was published. In doubtful cases – e.g., where different edi- tions of a poet’s works disagree on the dating of a certain text – we were not always able to establish the precise dates or even the most likely ones. Minute investigations of this kind would often have meant an unjustified expenditure of time, even where they yielded results; for our purposes, an approximate dating of individual texts was quite sufficient in the majority of cases. 167Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Table I In this table the following texts are analyzed: 1) Lomonosov’s translations of an ode by Fénelon (1738); 2) Lomonosov’s remaining four-foot trochees (the psalm “Gospodi, kto obitaet”, “Razgovor s Anakreonom”, “Gimn borode”); 3) Trediakovskij’s psalms and odes according to the 1752 edition; 4) the psalms and odes of Sumarokov (died 1777); 5) the longer works of Deržavin from various periods (1778–1780, 1789– 1791, 1801–1802 and 1809–1810); 6) two of Krylov’s poems from 1793 (“Utešenie” and “Moë opravdanie”); 7) Karamzin’s fairy-tale Il’ja Muromec; 8) Katenin’s trochee from the period 1814–1816: “Nataše”, “Pevec” (from Goethe), “Ol’ga” (from Bürger); 9) Žukovskij’s fairy-tale Spjaščaja carevna (1831); 10) Puškin’s unfinished fairy-tale Bova (1814); 11–13) Puškin’s lyrics, 1814–1822, 1824–1828 and 1829–1835; 14–16) Puškin’s fairly-tales Skazka o care Saltane (1831), Skazka o mërtvoj carevne (1833) and Skazka o zolotom petuške (1834); 17–18) Lermontov’s lyrics, 1828–1830 and 1832–1841; 19) Jazykov’s lyrics, 1830–1832; 20) excerpts from Poležaev’s narrative poem Koriolan (1834), composed in four-foot trochees (the third Chapter and one strophe from the fourth Chapter); 21) Nekrasov’s poem Korobejniki (1861); 22) Polonskij’s Pis’ma k Muze (1870–1875); 23) Mej (died 1862): Žena, belorusskaja skazka Reuta (translated from the Polish); 24) two ballads by A. K. Tolstoj: Borivoj and Alëša Popovič (1871); 25) Fet’s later lyrics (1879–1892); 26) A. Majkov: Ispoved’ korolevy (1861). The average rhythmic line for the eighteenth century is based on entries 1–6, and the average rhythmic line for the nineteenth century on entries 9 and 11–26. Karamzin’s Il’ja Muromec and Puškin’s Bova have only dactylic unrhymed dactylic endings, with the ninth syllable capable of carrying a stress (cf. Section II): the stress percentage for this syllable is 2.13% in Karamzin and 15% in Puškin. Žukovskij’s Spjaščaja carevna has only masculine rhymed endings, while Polonskij’s Pis’ma k Muze, Tolstoj’s Borivoj and Majkov’s Ispoved’ korolevy have only feminine endings. Majkov and Polonskij rhyme only the even lines 168 Kiril Taranovsky (abcb), whereas Tolstoj rhymes all lines (abab). In Nekrasov’s Korobejniki rhymed dactylic and masculine endings alternate. The remaining texts have both masculine and feminine endings, which are rhymed as a rule. For the sake of comparison with our own statistics, we cite below the figures given by other investigators (cf. Metričeskij spravočnik – Jarxo, Romanovič, Lapšina 1934: 82, Table XXXV, and Diagrams 1 and 2 at end of book) for Puškin’s fairy-tales (according to Šengeli) and lyrics (according to the compil- ers of Metričeskij spravočnik): a) Distribution of stresses in Puškin’s four-foot trochee: Syllables: 1 3 5 7 Fairy-tales 57.1 97.8 45.0 100 Lyrics 45.3 95.3 39.4 100 b) Rhythmic variations in Puškin’s four-foot trochee: Variations I II III IV V VI VII Fairy-tales 23.3 19.8 1.9 31.6 0.3 23.1 – Lyrics 12.9 22.4 4.0 27.8 0.6 32.2 0.1 It will be noted that Šengeli’s figures agree in the main with our own. However, the figures given by the compilers of Metričeskij spravočnik differ substantially both from our own figures and from those of Šengeli. According to our calcu- lations, Puškin’s fairy-tales and lyrics composed in four-foot trochaic meter show no striking differences in rhythmic drive, whereas from the compilers’ figures it would appear that the stress load of individual icti – particularly the weak icti (the first and third) – is considerably less in Puškin’s lyrics than in his fairy-tales. It is clear that the authors of Metričeskij spravočnik did not count all the stresses in the line, but only the more prominent ones: the bipartite rhythmic structure thus emerges more sharply in their statistics than in our own or Šengeli’s; this also explains why the percentage for the first figure in their statistics is only 12.9%. as against 32.2% for the sixth figure. We also cite Astaxova’s statistical data for the Russian four-foot trochee with dactylic endings (cf. Astaxova: “Iz istorii i ritmiki xoreja”, p. 66): a) Distribution of stresses: 169Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Syllables: 1 3 5 7 9 Sumarokov: 58 100 53.5 100 25.5 Xeraskov: 59 82 56 89 31 Karamzin: 54 96 48 100 25 Puškin: 47 96 55 100 15 Kol’cov: 29 100 61 100 13 Nikitin: 41 100 51 100 11 b) Distribution of boundaries between accentual units: Syllables: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sumarokov: 28 30 18.5 60 35 40 Xeraskov: 15 34 33 41 44 30 Karamzin: 27 27 24 51 41 28 Puškin: 22 25 33 53 35 30 Kol’cov: 12 17 35 52 50 24 Nikitin: 13 28 34 40 61 16 Astaxova’s sample for Xeraskov was his fairy-tale Baxarijana (1803), for Karamzin, Il’ja Muromec and for Puškin, Bova. It will be noted that our sta- tistics (for Karamzin and Puškin) are in complete agreement with Astaxova’s. The rhythmic structure of the literary four-foot trochee with a dactylic clausula is also to be found in the nine-syllable verse of the Russian popular tra- dition, e. g., in the verse of North Russian laments (see Jakobson 1952: 35–36). We did a supplementary statistical analysis of the popular nine-syllable line, taking as our sample, the laments which Barsov published under the title “Plač dočeri po otce” (cf. Barsov 1872: 45–57). Out of 355 lines, twenty-six violate the syllabic constant; the remaining 329 lines – 327 trochaic nine-syllable and two trochaic eight-syllable lines – show the following distribution of stresses and word boundaries: Syllables: 1 3 5 7 9 Stress percentages: 39.2 100 41.6 100 1.2 Syllables : 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Word boundary percentage 29.8 9.4 30.1 41.6 42.2 27.7 1.2 170 Kiril Taranovsky It will be observed that the third as well as the seventh syllable is a tonic constant in this meter. The icti on the first and fifth syllables are markedly weak, and the stresses which fall on these syllables are usually those of weakly accented, subordinate words. Even a few lines suffice to convey this rhythmic drive: Tý skaží, rodítel’-bátjusko, Mné izvédaj, krásno sólnyško, Už ] tý kudý da snarjažáeš’sja, Už ] tý kudý da sokručáeš’sja; Vo izbú li tý vo zémskuju, Al’ k obídni bogomól’noj, Al’ ko útreni voskrésnoj? U tjá plát’ica ne zdéšnii, I obútočka ne préžnjaja; Samá znáju, samá védaju, Što ty és’ da snarjažáeš’ja, Kak vo ė́tu vo doróžen’ku, Na rodítel’sku na búevku Ko serdéčnym ko rodíteljam... As we see, in this meter, too, the weak icti may be transferred onto the even syllables. The third ictus, which shifts to the following syllable in the tenth line of the quoted excerpt, may also shift to the preceding syllable, e. g. Iz-za ͜ mór’ ptíčki sletájutsja... Kak k tebé múža zakónnogo... The rhythm of these North Russian laments provides additional evidence that the rhythmic drive of the Russian four-foot trochee has its origin in folk verse (cf. our comments in Section 5, pp. 116–120). 171Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Table II Works analyzed: 1–12) All Lomonosov’s odes from 1739–1764; 13) A. Sumarokov: odes, 1767–1772; 14) Vasilij Petrov: “Oda na karusel’” (1766); 15) Mixail Xeraskov: odes, 1773–1777; 16) Ermil Kostrov: “Oda na den’ koronacii Ekateriny II” (1778); 17) Deržavin: lyrics, 1781–1785; 18) Radiščev: “Vol’nost’” (1783); 19) Jakov Knjažnin (died 1791): lyrics (the undated poems “Utro”, “Večer”, “Vospominanija starika”, “Nakazannaja nevernost’” and “Poslanie k knjagine Daškovoj”); 20) Nikolaj Nikolev: “Na zaključenie mira s deržavoju Švedskoju” (1790); 21) Nikolaj Osipov: Virglilieva Ėnejda, vyvoročennaja na iznanku, Canto I (1791); 22) Vasilij Kapnist: “Na Sčast’je” (1792); 23) Ippolit Bogdanovič: “Pesn’ na mir so Švecieju 1790 goda” and “Pesn’ na mir meždu Rossieju i ottomanskoju Portoju 1792 goda”; 24) Krylov: “Poslanie k drugu moemu” and “K sčast’ju” (1793); 25) Aleksandr Kotel’nickij: Poxiščenie Prozerpiny, Canto I (1795); 26) Osip Kozodavlev: “Snovidenie”; 27) Vasilij Puškin: lyrics before 1815 – “Toska po miloj” (1795), “K Xloe” (1795), “K žiteljam Nižnego Novgoroda” (1812) and “Ljublju i ne ljublju” (1815); 28–29) Žukovskij: lyrics, 1797–1800, and lyrics and translations, 1803–1813; 30) Batjuškov: four-foot iamb, 1805–1813 (the shorter poems Videnie na beregax Lety and Otryvki iz Šillerovoj tragedii); 31) Vjazemskij: lyrics, 1811–1815; 32) A. S. Puškin: Kol’na (1814); 33) Del’vig: “K poėtu matematiku” (1814); 34–38) Žukovskij: four-foot iamb, 1814–1816, 1818–1819, 1820, 1821, 1823–1832 (lyric verse, epistles, the ballads Polikratov persten’, Roland oruženosec and Plavanie Karla Velikogo and the narrative poems Peri i angel, Šil’onskij uznik and Sud v podzemel’e); 39) Batjuškov: lyrics, 1815–1817; 40) Vjazemskij: lyrics, 1816–1819; 41–44) Puškin: lyrics, 1814–1815, 1816, 1817–1818, 1819–1820; 45–46) Puškin: Ruslan i Ljudmila (1817–1820) and Baxčisarajskij fontan (1822–1823); 172 Kiril Taranovsky 47) Del’vig: lyric poems and epistles, 1817–1819; 48) Ivan Kozlov: “K drugu V. A. Žukovskomu” (1821), 49) Venevitinov (died 1827): lyrics; 50) Ryleev: Dumy (twelve poems composed between 1821 and 1823 and two undated works); 51) Kjuxel’beker: lyrics, 1818–1820; 52) Kjuxel’beker: lyrics, 1821–1824 and excerpts from the poem Kassandra; 53–54) Kjuxel’beker: Zorovavel’ (1831) and Jurij i Ksenija (1832–1835); 55) V. Puškin: Kapitan Xrabrov (1828–1829); 56–57) Ševyrëv: “K druz’jam” (1820) and lyrics from 1825; 58) Xomjakov: lyrics, 1826–1827; 59) Lermontov: narrative poems from 1828 (Čerkesy, Korsar and Kavkazskij plennik); 60) Lermontov: Poslednij syn vol’nosti (1830); 61) Žukovskij: complete four-foot iamb, 1814–1832 (cf. entries 34–38); 62) Puškin: four-foot iamb, 1814–1820 (excluding Kol’na, his first attempt at this meter; cf. entries 41–45). The average rhythmic line for the eighteenth century is based on entries 5–26, for the first phase of the transitional period on entries 27–33 and for the second phase of the transitional period on entries 34–50. The texts analyzed usually show an alternation of feminine and masculine rhymed endings; less frequently, masculine endings are found throughout; e. g., in Žukovskij’s Šil’onskij uznik and Sud v podzemel’e or Lermontov’s Poslednij syn vol’nosti. Table III Works analyzed: 1–13) Puškin: Kavkazskij plennik (1820–1821); Brat’ja razbojniki (1821– 1822); lyrics and the unfinished poem Vadim (1821–1822); lyrics, 1823–1824; Cygany (1824); Graf Nulin (1824–1825); lyrics, 1825–1826; lyrics, 1827; Poltava (1828); lyrics, 1828–1829; Evgenij Onegin (1823–1830); lyrics and the poems Gasub, Rodoslovnaja moego geroja (1830–1833) and Mednyj vsadnik (1833); (the figures for Evgenij Onegin are given according to the tables in Tomaševskij’s O stixe, pp. 136–137). 14–19) Vjazemskij: lyrics, 1820–1822, 1823–1825, 1826–1827, 1828, 1829– 1830, 1831; 20) Del’vig: lyrics, 1821–1825; 21) Ryleev (died 1826): the narrative poem Vojnarovskij; 173Russian Binary Meters. Part Two 22–23) I.  Kozlov: the narrative poems Černec (1824) and Knjaginja Dolgorukaja (1827); 24–25) Ševyrëv: lyrics, 1827 and 1828–1829; 26–27) Xomjakov: lyrics, 1829–1839 and 1841–1858; 28–39) Lermontov: lyrics and short narrative poems from 1829 (Prestupnik, Oleg, Dva brata and the first version of Demon); lyrics, 1830, narrative poems, 1830 (Ispoved’, Dve nevol’nicy and the second version of Demon); 1831 lyrics and short narrative poems (Azrail, Kally and Angel smerti); Izmail bej (1832); narrative poems, 1833–1834 (the fourth version of Demon, Xadži-Abrek, Gospital’, Ulanša and Petergofskij prazdnik); Bojarin Orša (1835); narrative poems, 1836 (Kaznačejša and Mongo); lyrics, 1832–1837; four-foot iamb, 1839–1840 (lyrics, the short play “Žurnalist, čitatel’ i pisatel’”, the narrative poems Beglec and Valerik; Mcyri (1840) and the final version of Demon (1841); 40) Žukovskij: “1 ijulja 1842”; 41) Pletnëv: lyrics, 1822–1825; 42–44) Jazykov: lyrics, 1823–1824, 1825–1828 and 1829–1831; 45–49) Baratynskij: lyrics, 1818–1820; lyrics, 1821–1828; narrative poems, 1826 (Ėda and Piry); the narrative poem Bal (1828); lyrics, 1828–1843; 50–51) Tjutčev: lyrics, 1820–1840 and 1844–1873; 52–57) Poležaev: lyrics and narrative poems (Saška and Iman-Kozël), 1825– 1826; lyrics and shorter poems (“Arestant”, “Ty xočeš’, drug...”, “Kreditory”, and “Čudak”), 1827–1831; the narrative poems Ėrpeli (1830) and Čir-Jurt (1832); lyrics and shorter poems (“Germenčugskoe Kladbišče” and “Videnie Bruta”), 1832–1833; lyrics and excerpts from narrative poems (Koriolan and Poslednij den’ Pompei), 1834–1838; 58) Nekrasov: Nesčastnye (1856); 59) Mej: Sleporoždënnyj (1855); 60) A. K. Tolstoj: Ioann Damaskin (1859); 61) Fet: Sabina (probably 1857). The averages for those poets who went over to the new rhythmic structure after 1820 are based, on entries 1–40, while the averages for those poets who implemented the new structure from the start are based on entries 41–61. The above texts, like those analyzed in the preceding table, usually show an alternation of feminine and masculine rhymed endings; relatively rare are poems with exclusively masculine endings (e. g., Lermontov’s Ispoved’ and Mcyri). Four-foot iambs with exclusively feminine endings are extremely rare, being found only in a few shorter poems (e. g., Fet’s Sabina). 174 Kiril Taranovsky Table IV The statistics which appear in this table are based on those given by A. Belyj in his Simvolizm (Belyj 1910: 262, 286–287, 371, 375, 379). Belyj followed the somewhat whimsical procedure of taking 596 lines from each poet, lines selected “from the period when the poet’s talent was at its peak”. Where this number of lines was not available for a given poet, Belyj used percentages to scale his statistics upward, so that they might be expressed “in terms of the usual 596 lines”. We have given all of Belyj’s statistics in percentages to facilitate comparison with our own figures. It must be pointed out that the figures cited by Belyj in various parts of his book are not always in agreement; whether these inconsistencies are to be ascribed to faulty calculation or to typographi- cal errors in not clear. Thus, for example, on p. 261 Belyj gives the sum total of pyrrhics for individual poets, and in the tables on pp. 262 and 286–287, the number of pyrrhics on different feet in the verse of the same poets: the results we obtained by summing up these last figures differ from Belyj’s in a good many cases. We generally disregarded the table on p. 261, since those on pp. 262 and 286–287, in which Belyj operates with more or less the same data, are in agreement for the most part; what inconsistencies occur here are not major ones. Belyj’s conclusions are also faulty at times; indeed, they may be contradicted by his own figures. Thus, he claims that the fewest iambic lines with all four stresses are to be found in Nekrasov (Belyj 1910: 295), whereas his statistics show clearly that Tjutčev, Fet, Jazykov and Baratynskij have even fewer such lines than Nekrasov. Nevertheless, despite their occasional lack of precision, Belyj’s data may be usefully compared with our own results. His figures for the eighteenth-century four-foot iamb (Tables 1–7 in Simvolizm) are generally in agreement with ours. Belyj’s coverage of the transitional period is quite meager, involving only two poets. The figures for Batjuškov are apparently based on a period extend- ing roughly from 1810–1817; Belyj loses sight of the important differences between Batjuškov’s pre-1814 iamb, on the one hand, and his 1815–1817 verse, on the other. It is unclear which period Belyj is operating with in his study of Žukovskij, but his figures for this poet are in any case accidental. Our own analysis of Žukovskij’s four-foot iamb, based on all his compositions in this meter, shows that from 1814 till as late as 1832 the poet wavered constantly between the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century rhythmic structures. From Belyj’s data it would appear that Žukovskij’s four-foot iamb, at least as regards the stress load of the second and fourth syllables, does not differ greatly from, say, Lermontov’s; hence, the altogether erroneous conclusion drawn by Belyj 175Russian Binary Meters. Part Two that “the entire rhythmic reform was the work of Batjuškov and Žukovskij” (Belyj 1910: 297). Belyj’s statistics for the nineteenth century (entries 10–24) are much more reliable than his data for the transitional period. The figures for Puškin, Lermontov, Jazykov, Baratynskij, Tjutčev and Nekrasov agree in the main with our own. Thus, in our statistics as well as Belyj’s the first foot has the smallest stress percentage in Baratynskij (lyric verse), and the third foot in Jazykov. Some minor divergences are easily explained by the fact that Belyj’s statistics do not cover exactly the same material as ours. It is clear, for example, that Belyj did not study Jazykov’s verse from the period before 1828. His figures for Jazykov’s four-foot iamb correspond to those which we give for the period 1829–1831; prior to 1828 the third foot carries an even smaller number of stresses. Our statistics and Belyj’s also diverge to some extent on A. K. Tolstoj, Mej and Fet — this because different genres were studied: our statistics are based on narrative poems, while Belyj’s are based on lyrics. The only major difference in our respective figures for these three poets involves the stress percentage for the sixth syllable: under 40% according to our calculations, over 40% according to Belyj’s. Belyj analyzes the verse of several nineteenth-century poets not included in our study: Benediktov, K. Pavlova, Polonskij, Majkov, Slučevskij and Nadson. All these poets are in the nineteenth-century tradi- tion; we note as unusual only the rather high stress load on the third foot (over 50%) in the verse of Pavlova and Polonskij (relatively high percentages for the penultimate ictus have also been observed in Polonskij’s other binary meters, e. g., his four-foot trochee, five-foot iamb and six-foot trochee with caesura). Finally, Belyj also analyzes the verse of several “modernist” poets (Merežkovskij, Sologub, Brjusov, V. Ivanov, Blok and Gorodeckij; cf. entries 25–30) not included in our investigation. In the verse of these poets the bipartite rhythmic structure typical of the nineteenth century is still quite pronounced; one is struck only by the high percentage of stresses on the penul- timate ictus (over 50%) in Brjusov, V. Ivanov, Blok and Gorodeckij. It would be premature, however, to conclude from these data alone that a high stress load on the penultimate ictus is characteristic of the entire epoch (the end of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth); Belyj’s data are too meager to permit any valid generalizations concerning the four-foot iamb of this period. For the sake of comparison we also cite Šengeli’s figures for Puškin’s four- foot iamb (quoted from Jarxo, Romanovič, Lapšina 1934: 80, Table XXXII, and Diagram 3 at end of book): 176 Kiril Taranovsky Syllables: 2 4 6 8 % stressed: 84 91 43 100 Rhythmic figures: I II III IV V VI % 27 7 9 48 0.3 9 Šengeli’s statistics are in general agreement with Belyj’s, Tomaševskij’s (for Evgenij Onegin) and our own. References Astaxova, A. M. [Astakhova, Anna Mikhailovna]. 1926. Iz istorii i ritmiki khoreja. In: Poėtica I. Leningrad: Academia, 54–66. Barsov, E. V. [Elpidifor Vasil’evich] 1872. Pričitan’ja severnogo kraja, part I. Moscow. Belyj, Andrej [Belyi, Andrei] 1910. Simvolizm: Kniga statej. Moskva: Musaget. Berkov, P.  N.  [Pavel Naumovich] 1936. Lomonosov i literaturnaja polemika ego vremeni, 1750–1765. Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Bondi, S. M. [Sergei Mikhailovich] 1935. Trediakovskij, Lomonosov, Sumarokov. In: Trediakovskij, V. K. [Trediakovsky, Vasily Kirillovich]. Stikhotvorenija. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’, 5–113. Hrabák, Josef 1937. Staropolský verš ve srovnání se staročeským (Studie Pražského lingvistického kroužku 1). Praha: Nakladatelství Pražského linguistického kroužku. Jakobson, Roman 1924. Starocheshskie stikhotvorenija, slozhennye odnorifmennymi chetverostishijami (8а-4). In: Slavia 3(2/3), 272–315. Jakobson, Roman 1938. K popisu Máchova verše. In: Mukařovský, Jan (ed.), Torso a tajemství Máchova díla: Sborník pojednání Pražského lingvistického kroužku. Praha: Fr. Borový, 207–278. Jakobson, Roman 1952. Studies in Comparative Slavic Metrics. In: Oxford Slavonic Papers 3: 21–66. Jarxo, B.  I. [Yarkho, Boris Isaakovich]; Romanovič, I.  K. [Romanovich, Igor’ Konstntinovich]; Lapšina, N. V. [Lapshina, Nadezhda Vasil’evna] 1934. Metričeskij spravočnik k stixotvorenijam Puškina. Moskva, Leningrad: Academia. Kantemir, A. D. [Antiokh Dmitrievich] 1868 [1744]. Pis’mo Kharitona Makentina k 177Russian Binary Meters. Part Two prijatelju o slozhenii stikhov russkikh. In: Sochinenija, pis’ma i izbrannye perevody knjazja Antiokha Dmitrievicha Kantemira. T. II. Sankt-Peterburg: I. I. Glazunov, 1–20. Kolessa, Filjaret [Filaret Mikhailovich] 1906–1907. Rytmika ukraïn’skyx narodnyx pisen’. Zapysky naukovogo tovarystva imeni Shevchenka 69(1), 7–30; 71(3), 44–95; 72(4), 80–111; 73(5), 65–118; 74(6), 33–68; 76(2), 64–116. Lomonosov, M. V. [Mikhail Vasil’evich] 1895 [1739]. Pis’mo o pravilakh rossijskogo stikhotvorstva. In: Sochinenija M. V. Lomonosova. T. 3. Sankt-Peterburg: tip. Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1–11. Minor, J. [Jacob] 1902. Neuhochdeutsche Metrik: Ein Handbuch. Zweite, umgearbeitete Auflage. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Peretc, V. N. [Peretts, Vladimir Nikolaevich] 1902. Istoriko-literaturnye issledovanija i materialy. Vol. III: Iz istorii razvitija russkoj poezii XVIII v. (Zapiski Istoriko- filologicheskogo fakul’teta Imperatorskogo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta 64). Sankt-Peterburg: tip. F. Vaisberga i P. Gershunina. Taranovsky, Kiril [Kirill Fedorovich] 1939. “O vozmožnosti datirovki ‘Razgovora s Anakreonom’ Lomonosova”. In: III Međunarodni kongres slavista (slovenskih filologa). Govori i predavanja / IIIème Congrès International des Slavistes (philologues slaves). Discours et conferences. (Izdanja Izvršnog odbora / Publications du Comité d’organisation 4). Beograd: štamp. Mlada Srbija, 151–152. Taranovsky, Kiril [Kirill Fedorovich] 1953. Ruski dvodelni ritmovi I–II. Beograd: Naučna knjiga. Timofeev, L. I. [Leonid Ivanovich] 1931. Problemy stikhovedenija. Materialy k sotsiologii stixa. Moskva: Federatsija. Tomaševskij, B. V. [Tomashevsky, Boris Viktorovich] 1929. O stikhe. Leningrad: Priboj. Trediakovskij, V. K. [Trediakovsky, Vasily Kirillovich]. 1735. Novyj i kratkij Sposob k slozheniju Rossijskikh stikhov s opredelenijami do sego nadlezhashchikh znanij. V Sanktpeterburge pri Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. Trediakovskij, V. K. [Trediakovsky, Vasily Kirillovich] 1849 [1752]. Sposob k slozheniju Rossijskikh stikhov, protiv vydannogo v 1735 gode ispravlennyj i dopolnennyj. In: Sochinenija Tred’jakovskogo. Izdanie Aleksandra Smirdina. T. 1. Sankt-Peterburg: tip. Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 121–178. [Trediakovsky, Vasily Kirillovich; Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasil’evich; Sumarokov, Aleksandr Petrovich]. 1744. Tri ody parafrasticheskie psalma 143, sochinennye cherez trex stikhotvortsev, iz kotorykh kazhdoj odnu slozhil osoblivo. V Sanktpeterburge Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. 178 Kiril Taranovsky Tables I–IV Table I: four-foot trochee No. Author Stressed syllables Average stress load on icti Number of lines1 3 5 7 1 Lomonosov (O. F.) 79.3 82.1 58.6 100 80.0 140 2 Lomonosov (other) 56.2 89.6 51.4 100 74.3 144 3 Trediakovskij 65.6 85.9 55.9 100 76.9 752 4 Sumarokov 61.2 88.6 53.2 100 75.8 675 5 Deržavin 62.0 92.1 51.8 100 76.5 1000 6 Krylov 62.8 94.4 63.7 100 80.2 360 7 Karamzin 54.8 97.3 47.1 100 74.8 480 8 Katenin 73.6 98.6 57.5 100 82.4 424 9 Žukovskij 54.4 100 47.5 100 75.5 366 10 Puškin (Bоva) 50.6 95.2 57.5 100 75.8 273 11 Puškin (lyr. 1814–22) 63.6 96.1 47.0 100 76.7 610 12 Puškin (lyr. 1824–28) 56.4 99.3 40.6 100 74.1 542 13 Puškin (lyr. 1829–35) 56.4 100.0 48.6 100 76.3 860 14 Puškin (C. S.) 56.9 96.7 45.2 100 74.7 996 15 Puškin (M. C.) 51.4 99.6 40.8 100 73.0 552 16 Puškin (Z. P.) 49.6 98.2 54.5 100 75.6 224 17 Lermontov (1828–30) 58.3 96.4 48.0 100 75.7 252 18 Lermontov (1832–41) 51.7 99.5 42.0 100 73.7 207 19 Jazykov 53.2 100 34.0 100 71.8 374 20 Poležaev 43.7 100 29.1 100 68.2 206 21 Nekrasov 50.6 100 43.4 100 73.5 684 22 Polonskij 54.0 96.3 58.6 100 74.7 324 23 Mej 50.0 100 47.0 100 74.3 300 24 A. K. Tolstoj 51.9 100 49.1 100 75.3 316 25 Fet 51.2 100 57.8 100 77.3 303 26 Majkov 52.3 100 57.5 100 77.4 480 27 18th c. average 63.3 89.5 54.8 100 76.9 3071 28 19th c. average 54.3 98.8 46.4 100 74.9 7600 179Russian Binary Meters. Part Two No. Author Rhythmic variations I II III IV V VI VII 1 Lomonosov (O. F.) 30.7 12.9 15.0 30.7 2.9 7.8 – 2 Lomonosov (other) 18.7 23.0 9.7 27.1 0.7 20.8 – 3 Trediakovskij 24.9 18.5 12.2 26.9 1.6 15.6 0.3 4 Sumarokov 21.5 20.0 11.0 28.4 0.3 18.1 0.1 5 Deržavin 24.1 20.1 7.6 30.0 0.3 17.9 – 6 Krylov 32.8 25.3 5.6 24.4 – 11.9 – 7 Karamzin 21.7 22.7 2.7 30.4 – 22.5 – 8 Katenin 37.5 18.6 1.4 34.6 – 7.8 – 9 Žukovskij 23.2 24.3 – 31.2 – 21.3 – 10 Puškin (Bоva) 23.8 29.3 4.4 22.0 0.4 20.1 – 11 Puškin (lyr. 1814–22) 22.1 21.3 3.3 37.9 0.3 14.8 0.3 12 Puškin (lyr. 1824–28) 21.6 18.3 0.7 34.1 – 25.3 – 13 Puškin (lyr. 1829–35) 28.1 20.5 – 28.3 – 23.1 – 14 Puškin (C. S.) 21.7 20.6 2.9 31.9 0.4 22.5 – 15 Puškin (M. C.) 19.9 20.5 0.4 31.1 – 28.1 – 16 Puškin (Z. P.) 27.3 25.4 1.8 20.5 – 25.0 – 17 Lermontov (1828–30) 25.0 19.4 3.6 29.8 – 22.2 – 18 Lermontov (1832–41) 18.8 22.7 0.5 32.4 – 25.6 – 19 Jazykov 15.5 18.5 – 37.7 – 28.3 – 20 Poležaev 12.1 17.0 – 31.6 – 39.3 – 21 Nekrasov 19.0 24.4 – 31.6 – 25.0 – 22 Polonskij 28.1 27.8 2.5 22.5 0.9 17.9 0.3 23 Mej 18.3 28.7 – 31.7 – 21.3 – 24 A. K. Tolstoj 22.5 26.6 – 29.4 – 21.5 – 25 Fet 26.8 31.0 – 24.4 – 17.8 – 26 Majkov 27.9 29.4 – 24.4 – 18.1 0.2 27 18th c. average 24.8 20.2 9.7 28.1 0.7 16.4 0.1 28 19th c. average 22.6 22.8 1.1 30.6 0.1 22.9 0.05 180 Kiril Taranovsky No. Author Word boundaries before syllables 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Lomonosov (O. F.) 27.9 42.1 43.6 37.1 50.0 19.3 2 Lomonosov (other) 22.2 29.9 31.9 47.9 44.4 20.8 3 Trediakovskij 27.7 31.6 36.8 43.1 48.0 20.1 4 Sumarokov 21.0 35.1 29.2 43.1 48.3 26.2 5 Deržavin 30.6 26.3 33.5 43.8 49.9 21.8 6 Krylov 30.0 29.7 44.7 43.1 50.0 23.3 7 Karamzin 26.0 28.5 23.5 53.5 38.8 28.8 8 Katenin 32.3 40.3 36.6 46.2 50.9 23.4 9 Žukovskij 26.5 27.9 34.4 42.9 43.7 26.5 10 Puškin (Bоva) 23.1 25.3 33.3 55.3 34.8 31.5 11 Puškin (lyr. 1814–22) 27.4 34.3 28.2 47.5 47.9 21.5 12 Puškin (lyr. 1824–28) 24.2 31.7 31.9 42.8 46.4 20.3 13 Puškin (lyr. 1829–35) 24.7 31.7 32.0 49.7 46.3 20.7 14 Puškin (C. S.) 19.5 34.8 33.8 44.2 50.4 16.1 15 Puškin (M. C.) 26.3 24.6 27.7 49.1 48.2 15.9 16 Puškin (Z. P.) 25.0 24.1 35.7 49.6 47.3 20.5 17 Lermontov (1828–30) 29.4 27.4 34.5 44.8 46.8 19.8 18 Lermontov (1832–41) 21.3 30.4 27.5 43.5 52.2 18.4 19 Jazykov 19.0 34.2 23.3 44.1 48.1 18.5 20 Poležaev 17.0 26.7 25.7 44.2 44.7 14.6 21 Nekrasov 21.9 28.7 29.7 48.1 45.6 20.0 22 Polonskij 27.2 25.0 47.8 32.7 49.7 26.5 23 Mej 23.0 27.0 36.7 48.0 44.7 17.6 24 A. K. Tolstoj 20.9 31.0 38.6 36.4 45.9 28.2 25 Fet 25.4 25.8 40.6 39.6 45.6 32.0 26 Majkov 27.5 24.8 41.7 44.0 46.5 25.2 27 18th c. average 27.2 30.8 35.1 43.3 48.8 22.4 28 19th c. average 23.8 29.8 33.1 45.0 47.1 20.8 181Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Table II: four-foot iamb 1739-1835 1–4: Lomonosov’s first attempts 5–26: 18th c. four-foot iamb 27–33: first phase of transitional period 34–50: second phase of transitional period 51–60: continuation of 18th-c. tradition by certain poets after 1820 61–65: rhythmic averages 182 Kiril Taranovsky No. Author Stressed syllables Average stress load on icti Number of lines2 4 6 8 1 Lomonosov (1739) 99.3 87.1 86.1 100 93.1 280 2 Lomonosov (1741) 99.3 97.5 98.2 100 98.8 440 3 Lomonosov (1742) 98.0 84.1 75.9 100 89.5 440 4 Lomonosov (1743) 98.4 89.5 82.7 100 92.7 248 5 Lomonosov (1745–46) 94.8 82.2 52.0 100 82.3 560 6 Lomonosov (1747) 97.3 76.5 48.0 100 80.5 302 7 Lomonosov (1748–49) 95.7 73.4 53.6 100 80.7 304 8 Lomonosov (1750) 93.0 76.8 47.8 100 79.4 630 9 Lomonosov (1752–57) 95.6 77.3 54.9 100 82.0 639 10 Lomonosov (1759–60) 95.6 72.3 54.6 100 80.6 390 11 Lomonosov (1761) 90.6 76.7 56.3 100 80.9 480 12 Lomonosov (1762–64) 90.9 71.2 52.9 100 78.8 580 13 Sumarokov (1767–72) 91.7 78.0 53.8 100 80.9 810 14 Petrov (1766) 92.9 84.3 61.8 100 84.8 280 15 Xeraskov (1773–77) 95.8 80.1 52.9 100 82.2 548 16 Kostrov (1778) 88.2 81.9 54.4 100 81.1 270 17 Deržavin (1781–85) 90.4 76.8 54.6 100 80.5 993 18 Radiščev (1783) 96.7 82.4 54.1 100 83.3 540 19 Knjažnin (до 1791) 96.3 82.4 58.7 100 84.4 699 20 Nikolev (1790) 98.1 86.9 58.5 100 85.9 260 21 Osipov (1791) 92.3 83.0 47.3 100 80.5 770 22 Kapnist (1792) 89.3 80.4 58.1 100 82.0 270 23 Bogdanovič (1790–92) 94.1 76.8 56.8 100 81.9 220 24 Krylov (1793) 91.7 88.1 61.4 100 85.3 515 25 Kotel’nickij (1795) 91.3 89.2 41.9 100 80.6 480 26 Kozodavlev 92.8 80.4 42.8 100 79.0 388 27 V. Puškin (1795–1815) 97.9 81.9 52.9 100 83.2 138 28 Žukovskij (1797–1800) 95.2 87.7 45.8 100 82.2 559 29 Žukovskij (1803–13) 92.1 86.5 47.8 100 81.6 889 30 Batjuškov (1805–13) 95.3 85.9 54.4 100 83.9 873 31 Vjazemskij (1811–15) 88.6 84.9 46.8 100 80.1 517 32 A. Puškin (Kol’na, 1814) 97.1 88.3 51.1 100 84.1 137 183Russian Binary Meters. Part Two No. Author Rhythmic variations I II III IV V VI VII 1 Lomonosov (1739) 72.5 0.7 12.9 13.9 — — — 2 Lomonosov (1741) 95.0 0.7 2.5 1.8 — — — 3 Lomonosov (1742) 58.9 1.8 15.2 23.2 0.7 0.2 — 4 Lomonosov (1743) 71.0 1.6 10.1 16.9 0.4 — — 5 Lomonosov (1745–46) 32.7 3.6 15.7 44.3 2.1 1.6 — 6 Lomonosov (1747) 25.8 1.0 21.2 48.0 2.3 1.7 — 7 Lomonosov (1748–49) 25.7 2.3 25.6 43.4 1.0 2.0 — 8 Lomonosov (1750) 23.2 3.3 21.3 46.6 1.9 3.7 — 9 Lomonosov (1752–57) 30.3 2.8 21.8 42.6 0.9 1.6 — 10 Lomonosov (1759–60) 27.9 1.3 25.4 40.0 2.3 3.1 — 11 Lomonosov (1761) 29.8 5.0 21.5 37.5 1.8 4.4 — 12 Lomonosov (1762–64) 22.9 3.1 26.9 39.2 1.9 6.0 — 13 Sumarokov (1767–72) 29.7 4.3 19.8 40.0 2.2 4.0 — 14 Petrov (1766) 42.2 4.6 15.0 35.0 0.7 2.5 — 15 Xeraskov (1773–77) 33.6 0.7 18.6 42.3 1.3 3.5 — 16 Kostrov (1778) 29.6 7.4 17.4 40.4 0.7 4.4 — 17 Deržavin (1781–85) 27.2 4.8 22.6 40.0 0.6 4.8 — 18 Radiščev (1783) 36.7 1.1 16.3 42.4 1.3 2.2 — 19 Knjažnin (до 1791) 39.6 2.1 17.0 39.1 0.6 1.6 — 20 Nikolev (1790) 46.2 0.4 11.9 38.8 1.2 1.5 — 21 Osipov (1791) 31.3 3.1 12.9 44.0 4.1 4.6 — 22 Kapnist (1792) 35.9 4.8 17.4 33.7 2.2 5.9 — 23 Bogdanovič (1790–92) 31.8 2.7 22.3 39.1 0.9 3.2 — 24 Krylov (1793) 44.5 5.6 11.3 35.3 0.6 2.7 — 25 Kotel’nickij (1795) 26.5 5.0 10.4 54.0 0.4 3.7 — 26 Kozodavlev 20.6 3.9 18.3 52.6 1.3 3.3 — 27 V. Puškin (1795–1815) 34.1 1.4 17.4 45.7 0.7 0.7 — 28 Žukovskij (1797–1800) 32.9 1.8 11.1 50.0 1.2 3.0 — 29 Žukovskij (1803–13) 32.1 3.3 12.4 46.5 1.1 4.6 — 30 Batjuškov (1805–13) 38.1 2.3 14.0 43.1 0.1 2.4 — 31 Vjazemskij (1811–15) 28.2 5.2 13.4 45.3 1.7 6.2 — 32 A. Puškin (Kol’na, 1814) 37.2 2.2 11.7 48.2 — 0.7 — 184 Kiril Taranovsky 33 Del’vig (1814) 85.1 78.5 40.0 100 75.9 195 34 Žukovskij (1814–16) 85.6 83.3 48.5 100 79.4 994 35 Žukovskij (1818–19) 84.2 86.1 37.2 100 76.9 823 36 Žukovskij (1820) 84.0 85.6 38.2 100 77.0 1182 37 Žukovskij (1821) 87.6 83.6 42.1 100 78.3 1130 38 Žukovskij (1823–32) 84.0 86.0 47.8 100 79.5 1516 39 Batjuškov (1815–17) 92.5 94.1 37.3 100 81.0 268 40 Vjazemskij (1816–19) 87.5 82.6 48.9 100 79.8 442 41 Puškin (1814–15) 91.5 91.7 38.3 100 80.4 530 42 Puškin (1816) 90.8 92.0 37.1 100 80.0 501 43 Puškin (1817–18) 87.6 89.9 36.5 100 78.5 515 44 Puškin (1819–20) 87.2 91.3 34.4 100 78.2 596 45 Puškin (R. & L., 1817–20) 91.5 89.9 44.1 100 81.4 2775 46 Puškin (B. F., 1822–23) 89.5 89.3 43.2 100 80.5 579 47 Del’vig (1817–19) 85.0 85.9 42.9 100 74.5 265 48 Kozlov (1821) 90.5 91.0 43.5 100 81.3 421 49 Venevitinov 89.0 91.5 44.1 100 81.2 1029 50 Ryleev (Dumy, 1821–23) 86.0 84.7 51.0 100 80.4 1336 51 Kjuxel’beker (1818–20) 87.3 85.7 44.8 100 79.5 636 52 Kjuxel’beker (1821–24) 89.9 86.7 49.1 100 81.4 931 53 Kjuxel’beker (Zor., 1831) 89.1 81.4 60.2 100 82.7 1233 54 Kjuxel’beker (J. & K., 1832–35) 86.7 81.9 58.5 100 81.8 2353 55 V. Puškin (1828) 87.5 78.0 46.0 100 77.9 604 56 Ševyrëv (1820) 89.8 86.0 42.7 100 79.6 157 57 Ševyrëv (1825) 91.3 86.4 47.6 100 81.3 206 58 Xomjakov (1826–27) 93.4 88.4 48.0 100 82.5 198 59 Lermontov (1828) 91.8 91.4 45.9 100 82.3 1252 60 Lermontov (P. s. v., 1830) 85.8 84.4 49.1 100 79.8 802 61 Žukovskij (1814–32) 85.0 85.0 43.2 100 78.3 5645 62 Puškin (1814–20) 90.5 90.5 40.8 100 80.5 4917 63 18th c. average 93.2 79.7 53.2 100 81.5 10928 64 1st phase of trans. period 92.6 85.9 49.1 100 81.9 4691 65 2nd phase of trans. period 87.7 87.7 43.2 100 79.7 14884 185Russian Binary Meters. Part Two 33 Del’vig (1814) 16.4 6.2 17.4 47.2 4.1 8.7 — 34 Žukovskij (1814–16) 29.5 5.2 13.8 39.4 2.9 9.2 — 35 Žukovskij (1818–19) 21.1 4.9 11.2 49.2 2.7 10.9 — 36 Žukovskij (1820) 22.3 4.4 11.5 47.3 2.9 11.6 — 37 Žukovskij (1821) 24.9 4.3 12.9 46.3 3.5 8.1 — 38 Žukovskij (1823–32) 28.8 7.1 11.9 41.9 2.1 8.9 — 39 Batjuškov (1815–17) 29.1 4.1 4.1 57.5 1.8 3.4 — 40 Vjazemskij (1816–19) 28.3 5.7 14.9 41.8 2.5 6.8 — 41 Puškin (1814–15) 27.2 3.4 7.7 56.0 0.6 5.1 — 42 Puškin (1816) 25.5 4.2 7.4 57.3 0.6 5.0 — 43 Puškin (1817–18) 23.7 3.3 9.5 53.8 0.6 9.1 — 44 Puškin (1819–20) 21.3 4.9 8.2 57.2 0.5 7.9 — 45 Puškin (R. & L., 1817–20) 29.6 4.6 9.9 51.8 0.2 3.9 — 46 Puškin (B. F., 1822–23) 28.9 3.8 10.5 49.9 0.2 6.7 — 47 Del’vig (1817–19) 23.9 6.5 12.5 47.0 1.6 8.5 — 48 Kozlov (1821) 30.4 4.5 8.6 51.1 0.4 5.0 — 49 Venevitinov 29.7 6.3 8.1 50.8 0.4 4.7 — 50 Ryleev (Dumy, 1821–23) 29.0 7.5 14.5 41.7 0.8 6.5 — 51 Kjuxel’beker (1818–20) 23.6 7.5 13.7 49.4 0.6 5.2 — 52 Kjuxel’beker (1821–24) 28.9 7.2 13.0 47.7 0.3 2.9 — 53 Kjuxel’beker (Zor., 1831) 35.6 6.9 17.7 34.9 0.9 4.0 — 54 Kjuxel’beker (J. & K., 1832–35) 34.1 8.0 16.4 34.5 1.7 5.3 — 55 V. Puškin (1828) 21.5 6.0 18.5 44.0 3.5 6.5 — 56 Ševyrëv (1820) 25.5 5.1 12.1 50.3 1.9 5.1 — 57 Ševyrëv (1825) 32.6 2.9 12.1 45.1 1.5 5.8 — 58 Xomjakov (1826–27) 33.3 3.6 11.1 48.5 0.5 3.0 — 59 Lermontov (1828) 33.1 4.6 8.2 50.1 0.4 3.6 — 60 Lermontov (P. s. v., 1830) 27.6 6.7 14.8 42.6 0.8 7.5 — 61 Žukovskij (1814–32) 25.6 5.3 12.3 44.4 2.7 9.7 — 62 Puškin (1814–20) 27.3 4.3 9.2 53.7 0.3 5.2 — 63 18th c. average 31.1 3.4 18.7 41.9 1.5 3.4 — 64 1st phase of trans. period 32.3 3.6 13.1 46.3 1.0 3.7 — 65 2nd phase of trans. period 27.2 5.2 10.9 48.3 1.4 7.1 — 186 Kiril Taranovsky No. Author Word boundaries before syllables 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Lomonosov (1739) 43.9 51.1 42.1 43.2 60.7 31.4 2 Lomonosov (1741) 42.3 56.6 46.1 51.1 60.5 38.4 3 Lomonosov (1742) 41.6 48.9 40.5 42.5 53.0 31.6 4 Lomonosov (1743) 41.1 52.4 44.4 44.4 59.7 28.6 5 Lomonosov (1745–46) 36.2 49.8 30.4 45.4 44.3 22.9 6 Lomonosov (1747) 38.7 45.4 32.8 40.1 44.4 20.5 7 Lomonosov (1748–49) 39.8 43.8 33.6 36.2 44.7 24.7 8 Lomonosov (1750) 36.8 44.1 32.5 38.9 47.1 18.1 9 Lomonosov (1752–57) 38.5 46.5 33.2 39.1 41.0 29.6 10 Lomonosov (1759–60) 29.0 55.4 25.6 36.4 50.3 25.9 11 Lomonosov (1761) 33.5 46.5 30.8 38.8 47.3 26.7 12 Lomonosov (1762–64) 33.8 43.8 31.2 32.4 47.1 26.7 13 Sumarokov (1767–72) 33.7 46.5 32.1 40.4 37.7 33.1 14 Petrov (1766) 38.6 46.4 29.6 45.4 48.6 30.4 15 Xeraskov (1773–77) 34.5 52.0 29.7 39.8 44.0 28.8 16 Kostrov (1778) 39.6 40.0 34.4 38.2 48.2 24.1 17 Deržavin (1781–85) 37.4 43.6 33.7 37.0 49.6 20.4 18 Radiščev (1783) 38.0 47.0 40.7 38.5 50.9 18.0 19 Knjažnin (до 1791) 40.3 46.5 31.9 43.8 48.2 26.6 20 Nikolev (1790) 41.2 51.5 35.8 41.2 47.7 26.2 21 Osipov (1791) 41.7 41.0 39.9 41.2 43.5 15.3 22 Kapnist (1792) 36.7 43.7 36.7 34.8 55.2 20.7 23 Bogdanovič (1790–92) 35.0 44.1 35.5 36.8 49.1 27.3 24 Krylov (1793) 41.7 43.3 39.8 41.6 50.1 24.7 25 Kotel’nickij (1795) 35.0 51.3 24.4 46.3 51.7 13.8 26 Kozodavlev 43.0 38.2 24.2 46.9 50.5 13.2 27 V. Puškin (1795–1815) 39.1 53.6 34.1 36.2 54.3 15.4 28 Žukovskij (1797–1800) 42.8 47.5 28.1 42.4 48.1 19.9 29 Žukovskij (1803–13) 47.6 38.6 35.1 38.5 46.5 20.2 30 Batjuškov (1805–13) 41.2 48.2 33.7 37.2 50.5 24.7 31 Vjazemskij (1811–15) 39.5 40.4 31.3 38.9 49.3 20.9 32 A. Puškin (Kol’na, 1814) 38.0 53.2 27.0 51.8 43.8 22.6 33 Del’vig (1814) 33.8 42.6 22.6 37.9 49.7 16.9 187Russian Binary Meters. Part Two 34 Žukovskij (1814–16) 41.4 36.1 35.6 37.0 48.0 19.2 35 Žukovskij (1818–19) 35.7 40.9 28.4 35.2 48.2 19.0 36 Žukovskij (1820) 35.2 40.2 29.8 37.3 46.4 18.9 37 Žukovskij (1821) 33.0 44.3 31.4 38.9 46.8 18.9 38 Žukovskij (1823–32) 39.0 38.8 34.4 35.2 48.4 22.0 39 Batjuškov (1815–17) 41.4 47.0 28.0 42.5 44.4 20.5 40 Vjazemskij (1816–19) 33.5 45.0 31.7 38.5 47.7 22.6 41 Puškin (1814–15) 40.6 45.7 25.3 44.7 50.6 14.7 42 Puškin (1816) 41.5 45.7 21.6 44.7 47.9 18.6 43 Puškin (1817–18) 40.0 42.7 23.3 38.4 48.5 21.0 44 Puškin (1819–20) 37.1 47.6 20.1 42.4 48.3 17.3 45 Puškin (R. & L., 1817–20) 37.9 50.1 26.6 42.6 47.3 21.0 46 Puškin (B. F., 1822–23) 33.3 52.5 26.6 38.5 51.1 19.9 47 Del’vig (1817–19) 36.0 42.5 32.8 32.0 53.0 17.4 48 Kozlov (1821) 42.8 44.2 31.1 42.5 50.6 13.8 49 Venevitinov 41.4 44.1 31.4 38.9 47.4 21.4 50 Ryleev (Dumy, 1821–23) 39.1 40.7 31.8 37.1 51.3 21.7 51 Kjuxel’beker (1818–20) 39.5 41.5 24.8 43.4 47.6 20.9 52 Kjuxel’beker (1821–24) 45.4 40.2 27.7 40.2 47.3 24.9 53 Kjuxel’beker (Zor., 1831) 33.6 47.5 33.6 38.8 50.1 27.1 54 Kjuxel’beker (J. & K., 1832–35) 34.6 44.2 33.0 42.1 49.8 23.4 55 V. Puškin (1828) 30.5 47.8 33.1 35.9 47.8 16.4 56 Ševyrëv (1820) 28.7 54.8 17.8 46.5 53.5 17.2 57 Ševyrëv (1825) 33.5 51.5 35.4 30.6 55.3 18.9 58 Xomjakov (1826–27) 30.8 58.1 28.8 38.4 55.6 18.2 59 Lermontov (1828) 40.8 47.7 33.9 41.5 47.9 17.3 60 Lermontov (P. s. v., 1830) 36.4 43.9 30.0 38.0 47.8 23.2 61 Žukovskij (1814–32) 37.0 40.0 32.2 36.7 47.6 19.8 62 Puškin (1814–20) 38.7 48.1 24.8 42.6 48.0 19.6 63 18th c. average 37.3 45.9 32.8 40.0 46.7 23.4 64 1st phase of trans. period 41.5 44.4 31.3 41.0 49.3 20.1 65 2nd phase of trans. period 38.0 43.9 29.3 39.2 48.3 19.9 188 Kiril Taranovsky 189Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Table III: four-foot iamb from 1820 to end of 19th century 1–40: poets who went over to new rhythmic drive 41–61: poets who implemented new rhythmic drive from outset 62–63: rhythmic averages 190 Kiril Taranovsky No. Author Stressed syllables Average stress load on icti Number of lines2 4 6 8 1 Puškin (K. P., 1820–21) 88.8 91.8 46.6 100 81.8 734 2 Puškin (B. R., 1821–22) 86.5 90.4 47.4 100 81.1 251 3 Puškin (lyr. 1821–22) 84.4 92.2 44.7 100 80.3 765 4 Puškin (lyr. 1823–24) 84.8 92.8 42.3 100 80.0 678 5 Puškin (Cygany, 1824) 87.4 91.2 49.4 100 82.0 533 6 Puškin (Gr. N., 1824–25) 84.0 88.6 51.1 100 80.9 370 7 Puškin (lyr. 1825–26) 83.4 91.7 47.0 100 80.5 338 8 Puškin (lyr. 1827) 83.6 93.0 40.0 100 79.2 512 9 Puškin (Poltava, 1828) 87.0 94.8 43.8 100 81.4 1486 10 Puškin (lyr. 1828–29) 83.1 92.7 45.1 100 80.2 629 11 Puškin (E. O., 1823–30) 84.4 89.9 43.1 100 79.4 5320 12 Puškin (lyr. 1830–33) 83.9 95.3 47.0 100 81.6 1195 13 Puškin (M. V., 1833) 85.5 96.4 40.7 100 80.7 469 14 Vjazemskij (1820–22) 79.3 85.2 49.7 100 78.6 628 15 Vjazemskij (1823–25) 82.1 85.4 54.8 100 80.6 664 16 Vjazemskij (1826–27) 77.5 86.6 48.9 100 78.3 591 17 Vjazemskij (1828) 79.6 85.5 51.9 100 79.3 696 18 Vjazemskij (1829–30) 79.3 89.5 40.2 100 77.3 458 19 Vjazemskij (1831) 78.1 90.7 48.2 100 79.3 483 20 Del’vig (1821–25) 82.3 92.8 42.2 100 79.4 265 21 Ryleev (Vojn.) 82.1 90.7 46.3 100 79.8 1109 22 Kozlov (1824) 90.5 93.1 45.0 100 82.2 593 23 Kozlov (1827) 89.9 95.4 44.1 100 82.4 1084 24 Ševyrëv (1827) 84.0 93.1 45.4 100 80.6 449 25 Ševyrëv (1828–29) 80.6 93.2 38.9 100 78.2 561 26 Xomjakov (1828–39) 90.4 95.2 46.5 100 83.0 768 27 Xomjakov (1841–58) 85.8 92.0 52.1 100 82.5 338 28 Lermontov (nar. poems 1829) 84.0 92.0 45.4 100 80.4 742 29 Lermontov (lyr. 1830) 85.7 88.8 51.0 100 81.4 1385 30 Lermontov (nar. poems 1830) 81.3 93.9 43.5 100 79.7 754 31 Lermontov (lyr. 1831) 84.4 91.8 48.3 100 81.1 1378 32 Lermontov (I.–B, 1832) 82.9 94.4 44.9 100 80.6 1730 191Russian Binary Meters. Part Two No. Author Rhythmic variations I II III IV V VI VII 1 Puškin (K. P., 1820–21) 32.8 5.9 7.9 47.8 0.3 5.3 – 2 Puškin (B. R., 1821–22) 29.9 7.9 9.6 47.0 – 5.6 – 3 Puškin (lyr. 1821–22) 29.9 7.1 7.7 46.7 0.1 8.5 – 4 Puškin (lyr. 1823–24) 28.2 7.2 6.9 49.4 0.3 8.0 – 5 Puškin (Cygany, 1824) 35.3 5.3 8.8 43.3 – 7.3 – 6 Puškin (Gr. N., 1824–25) 32.9 6.8 11.4 39.7 – 9.2 – 7 Puškin (lyr. 1825–26) 30.5 9.2 7.3 44.8 0.9 7.3 – 8 Puškin (lyr. 1827) 25.6 7.6 6.8 5.1 – 8.8 – 9 Puškin (Poltava, 1828) 32.6 6.0 5.2 49.2 – 7.0 – 10 Puškin (lyr. 1828–29) 30.5 7.8 6.8 45.3 0.5 9.1 – 11 Puškin (E. O., 1823–30) 26.8 6.6 9.7 47.5 0.4 9.0 – 12 Puškin (lyr. 1830–33) 34.3 8.0 4.7 44.9 – 8.1 – 13 Puškin (M. V., 1833) 32.2 5.1 3.4 49.7 0.2 9.4 – 14 Vjazemskij (1820–22) 26.0 11.6 12.1 38.5 2.7 9.1 – 15 Vjazemskij (1823–25) 33.1 8.6 13.1 34.4 1.5 9.3 – 16 Vjazemskij (1826–27) 25.0 11.0 12.9 39.1 0.5 11.5 – 17 Vjazemskij (1828) 28.0 10.4 13.5 37.1 1.0 10.0 – 18 Vjazemskij (1829–30) 24.5 6.5 9.2 44.3 1.3 14.2 – 19 Vjazemskij (1831) 30.0 9.9 8.3 38.8 1.0 12.0 – 20 Del’vig (1821–25) 24.5 11.3 6.4 50.6 0.8 6.4 – 21 Ryleev (Vojn.) 29.0 8.7 8.7 43.8 0.6 9.2 – 22 Kozlov (1824) 33.7 4.9 6.4 49.9 0.5 4.6 – 23 Kozlov (1827) 34.7 5.2 4.2 50.6 0.4 4.9 – 24 Ševyrëv (1827) 29.6 8.9 6.9 47.5 — 7.1 – 25 Ševyrëv (1828–29) 34.2 8.6 6.1 49.6 0.7 10.8 – 26 Xomjakov (1828–39) 35.2 6.6 4.7 50.4 0.1 3.0 – 27 Xomjakov (1841–58) 38.5 5.9 7.7 39.3 0.3 8.3 – 28 Lermontov (nar. poems 1829) 28.8 9.0 7.6 47.2 0.4 7.0 – 29 Lermontov (lyr. 1830) 32.6 7.6 10.8 41.9 0.4 6.7 – 30 Lermontov (nar. poems 1830) 28.4 9.3 5.8 46.8 0.3 9.4 – 31 Lermontov (lyr. 1831) 32.5 7.8 8.0 43.7 0.2 7.8 – 32 Lermontov (I.–B, 1832) 30.5 8.9 5.5 46.8 0.1 8.2 – 192 Kiril Taranovsky 33 Lermontov (narrative poems 1833–34) 85.4 93.8 44.6 100 81.0 1357 34 Lermontov (B. O., 1835) 84.3 92.5 47.6 100 81.1 1065 35 Lermontov (nar. poems 1836) 84.0 92.4 45.4 100 80.5 1000 36 Lermontov (lyr. 1832–37) 82.9 95.7 47.5 100 81.5 696 37 Lermontov (lyr. 1839–40) 85.9 92.3 45.2 100 80.9 775 38 Lermontov (Mcyri, 1840) 87.0 93.6 45.1 100 81.4 739 39 Lermontov (Demon, 1841) 85.3 92.7 40.6 100 79.7 1117 40 Žukovskij (1842) 83.5 88.6 50.0 100 80.5 236 41 Pletnev (1822–25) 81.0 93.3 44.0 100 79.6 541 42 Jazykov (1823–24) 84.8 99.2 24.6 100 77.2 906 43 Jazykov (1825–28) 80.7 96.7 26.3 100 75.9 1242 44 Jazykov (1829–31) 77.3 98.7 33.2 100 77.3 952 45 Baratynskij (lyr. 1819–20) 88.2 96.9 51.5 100 84.2 229 46 Baratynskij (lyr. 1821–28) 75.9 99.0 43.9 100 79.7 908 47 Baratynskij (nar. poems 1826) 81.9 98.8 41.5 100 80.6 832 48 Baratynskij (nar. poems 1828) 81.4 97.0 39.0 100 79.4 644 49 Baratynskij (lyr. 1829–43) 75.6 98.4 35.1 100 77.3 767 50 Tjutčev (1820–40) 82.3 89.2 42.3 100 78.5 924 51 Tjutčev (1844–73) 77.9 90.8 41.2 100 77.5 1594 52 Poležaev (1825–26) 87.5 95.5 36.5 100 79.9 1623 53 Poležaev (1827–31) 83.0 98.8 34.4 100 79.1 1367 54 Poležaev (Ėrpeli, 1830) 81.9 99.3 26.0 100 76.8 1291 55 Poležaev (Čir–Jurt, 1832) 84.5 99.6 24.6 100 77.2 1124 56 Poležaev (1832–33) 83.0 100 28.8 100 78.0 775 57 Poležaev (1834–38) 84.0 99.3 26.7 100 77.5 819 58 Nekrasov (1856) 85.2 93.1 41.7 100 80.0 894 59 Mej (1855) 79.8 97.7 30.9 100 77.1 223 60 A. K. Tolstoj 87.0 98.4 37.3 100 80.7 546 61 Fet 84.8 95.1 35.3 100 78.8 244 62 Poets who went over to the new rhythmic structure 84.4 92.2 46.0 100 80.7 29621 63 Poets who implemented the new structure from 82.1 96.8 34.6 100 78.4 18445 193Russian Binary Meters. Part Two 33 Lermontov (narrative poems 1833–34) 31.8 6.9 5.9 47.4 0.3 7.7 – 34 Lermontov (B. O., 1835) 32.4 8.2 7.0 44.4 0.5 7.5 – 35 Lermontov (nar. poems 1836) 30.7 7.5 7.2 45.7 0.4 8.5 – 36 Lermontov (lyr. 1832–37) 34.9 8.6 4.0 43.7 0.3 8.5 – 37 Lermontov (lyr. 1839–40) 30.8 6.9 7.5 47.4 0.2 7.2 – 38 Lermontov (Mcyri, 1840) 32.6 6.8 5.7 48.0 0.7 6.2 – 39 Lermontov (Demon, 1841) 28.4 5.3 6.9 49.6 0.4 9.4 – 40 Žukovskij (1842) 35.2 5.1 9.7 36.9 1.7 11.4 – 41 Pletnev (1822–25) 26.6 10.9 6.5 47.7 0.2 8.1 — 42 Jazykov (1823–24) 21.1 3.1 0.4 62.9 0.4 12.1 — 43 Jazykov (1825–28) 17.3 5.9 3.1 60.1 0.2 13.4 — 44 Jazykov (1829–31) 23.4 8.6 1.2 52.6 0.1 14.1 — 45 Baratynskij (lyr. 1819–20) 40.6 8.3 2.6 44.5 0.5 3.5 — 46 Baratynskij (lyr. 1821–28) 30.2 12.8 0.9 44.7 0.1 11.3 — 47 Baratynskij (nar. poems 1826) 30.9 9.5 1.1 49.8 0.1 8.6 — 48 Baratynskij (nar. poems 1828) 28.1 8.2 2.7 50.3 0.3 10.4 — 49 Baratynskij (lyr. 1829–43) 23.5 10.0 1.6 50.5 — 14.4 — 50 Tjutčev (1820–40) 25.9 5.9 10.5 45.6 0.3 11.8 — 51 Tjutčev (1844–73) 25.9 6.8 8.5 42.8 0.7 15.3 — 52 Poležaev (1825–26) 27.5 5.1 3.9 55.5 0.6 7.4 — 53 Poležaev (1827–31) 26.3 7.0 — 55.5 0.1 10.0 — 54 Poležaev (Ėrpeli, 1830) 20.4 5.1 0.5 60.8 0.2 13.0 — 55 Poležaev (Čir–Jurt, 1832) 19.7 4.5 0.4 64.4 — 11.0 — 56 Poležaev (1832–33) 22.9 5.9 — 60.1 — 11.1 — 57 Poležaev (1834–38) 21.5 4.6 0.6 61.8 0.1 11.4 — 58 Nekrasov (1856) 29.3 5.6 6.9 49.0 — 9.2 — 59 Mej (1855) 21.5 7.1 2.3 56.1 — 13.0 — 60 A. K. Tolstoj 29.7 6.0 1.6 55.7 — 7.0 — 61 Fet 23.8 6.6 4.9 56.1 — 8.6 — 62 Poets who went over to the new rhythmic structure 31.0 7.6 7.4 45.6 0.4 8.0 — 63 Poets who implemented the new structure from 24.9 6.7 3.0 54.0 0.2 11.2 — 194 Kiril Taranovsky No. Author Word boundaries before syllables 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Puškin (K. P., 1820–21) 39.1 46.6 28.3 41.0 50.3 21.9 2 Puškin (B. R., 1821–22) 36.3 45.4 35.5 38.6 49.8 18.7 3 Puškin (lyr. 1821–22) 39.6 42.4 28.5 42.2 46.9 21.7 4 Puškin (lyr. 1823–24) 38.3 44.5 28.3 41.3 48.4 19.0 5 Puškin (Cygany, 1824) 40.3 46.2 33.6 35.6 50.5 21.8 6 Puškin (Gr. N., 1824–25) 33.5 45.9 30.5 39.5 50.5 23.8 7 Puškin (lyr. 1825–26) 39.9 39.9 31.4 41.1 48.2 21.6 8 Puškin (lyr. 1827) 39.6 41.4 28.1 39.3 48.6 19.5 9 Puškin (Poltava, 1828) 40.3 45.6 28.8 43.6 48.9 18.5 10 Puškin (lyr. 1828–29) 44.0 37.7 29.7 37.4 52.8 19.4 11 Puškin (E. O., 1823–30) 36.6 44.3 28.7 40.4 46.5 20.7 12 Puškin (lyr. 1830–33) 44.5 38.5 32.6 41.4 50.5 18.8 13 Puškin (M. V., 1833) 40.7 43.9 25.4 44.8 46.7 21.1 14 Vjazemskij (1820–22) 35.7 37.1 35.2 37.7 44.9 23.6 15 Vjazemskij (1823–25) 35.4 41.1 34.0 37.5 46.4 27.9 16 Vjazemskij (1826–27) 37.2 35.0 28.5 39.4 43.5 29.4 17 Vjazemskij (1828) 32.0 41.8 27.2 39.9 49.7 26.3 18 Vjazemskij (1829–30) 34.7 39.7 21.8 42.8 47.2 22.9 19 Vjazemskij (1831) 32.3 42.0 32.1 39.5 45.5 25.5 20 Del’vig (1821–25) 43.8 35.8 32.4 35.1 54.0 16.3 21 Ryleev (Vojn.) 41.8 36.7 31.7 41.6 49.5 17.9 22 Kozlov (1824) 42.8 44.7 37.6 34.9 48.4 20.2 23 Kozlov (1827) 42.0 46.3 34.9 37.9 52.0 16.3 24 Ševyrëv (1827) 36.5 45.7 33.0 35.4 52.6 19.4 25 Ševyrëv (1828–29) 39.4 39.0 28.3 35.7 47.4 22.8 26 Xomjakov (1828–39) 39.7 48.3 30.9 39.8 51.0 22.3 27 Xomjakov (1841–58) 39.9 43.8 35.8 36.7 50.3 23.4 28 Lermontov (nar. poems 1829) 43.8 38.4 30.3 38.5 50.3 20.0 29 Lermontov (lyr. 1830) 41.6 40.7 34.2 38.3 50.4 20.2 30 Lermontov (nar. poems 1830) 37.8 41.0 28.6 44.2 45.8 21.4 31 Lermontov (lyr. 1831) 41.4 41.1 30.0 43.3 48.1 20.5 32 Lermontov (I.–B, 1832) 42.1 39.5 29.9 44.9 48.2 17.6 195Russian Binary Meters. Part Two 33 Lermontov (narrative poems 1833–34) 43.6 40.5 28.5 42.7 48.5 19.9 34 Lermontov (B. O., 1835) 37.8 43.4 32.9 40.8 52.3 17.2 35 Lermontov (nar. poems 1836) 42.4 39.2 28.8 44.4 46.2 20.8 36 Lermontov (lyr. 1832–37) 42.2 38.8 33.8 39.8 52.2 19.4 37 Lermontov (lyr. 1839–40) 40.3 43.2 30.2 38.1 50.1 21.5 38 Lermontov (Mcyri, 1840) 36.7 47.8 34.9 38.2 48.3 19.9 39 Lermontov (Demon, 1841) 39.1 44.0 30.4 35.3 52.3 17.5 40 Žukovskij (1842) 38.6 38.6 34.3 39.8 47.9 22.9 41 Pletnev (1822–25) 41.2 36.8 33.5 31.2 48.8 26.8 42 Jazykov (1823–24) 44.4 39.8 23.2 39.0 47.5 14.8 43 Jazykov (1825–28) 44.5 33.9 21.0 40.1 47.1 17.1 44 Jazykov (1829–31) 41.9 34.9 25.1 39.5 49.5 18.4 45 Baratynskij (lyr. 1819–20) 45.0 42.4 33.2 42.3 47.6 26.2 46 Baratynskij (lyr. 1821–28) 39.5 35.8 29.1 42.6 48.5 23.2 47 Baratynskij (nar. poems 1826) 40.3 41.0 28.2 40.7 50.6 21.3 48 Baratynskij (nar. poems 1828) 39.1 41.0 22.5 45.7 50.3 18.8 49 Baratynskij (lyr. 1829–43) 37.0 37.9 25.0 46.2 44.2 18.7 50 Tjutčev (1820–40) 37.7 41.6 27.9 38.3 46.2 22.1 51 Tjutčev (1844–73) 35.9 39.5 27.6 40.8 43.9 22.2 52 Poležaev (1825–26) 47.5 38.5 28.2 41.2 47.4 16.7 53 Poležaev (1827–31) 43.7 38.6 28.6 43.8 45.3 16.1 54 Poležaev (Ėrpeli, 1830) 41.1 40.4 22.7 46.7 40.3 16.0 55 Poležaev (Čir–Jurt, 1832) 43.4 40.8 19.6 45.0 45.1 14.7 56 Poležaev (1832–33) 44.6 38.3 23.1 43.0 45.3 17.4 57 Poležaev (1834–38) 46.8 37.0 26.4 42.5 42.7 14.7 58 Nekrasov (1856) 37.2 47.3 28.2 41.2 45.3 20.9 59 Mej (1855) 40.8 37.2 27.4 44.4 43.5 15.2 60 A. K. Tolstoj 48.9 37.5 28.6 39.4 49.5 18.9 61 Fet 37.7 46.7 29.1 41.8 46.3 13.5 62 Poets who went over to the new rhythmic structure 40.0 41.8 30.9 40.3 49.2 20.4 63 Poets who implemented the new structure from 41.9 39.1 26.0 41.8 46.1 18.5 196 Kiril Taranovsky 197Russian Binary Meters. Part Two Table IV: four-foot iamb (according to A. Belyj’s calculations) 1–7: 18th c. four-foot iamb 8–9: transitional period 10–24: 19th c. four-foot iamb (from Pushkin to Symbolists) 25–30: Symbolists 198 Kiril Taranovsky No. Author Stressed syllables Average stress load on icti2 4 6 8 1 Lomonosov 97.8 76.7 54.4 100 82.2 2 Deržavin 92.3 76.7 55.9 100 81.2 3 Bogdanovič 96.0 80.9 54.5 100 82.9 4 Ozerov 90.9 83.2 62.1 100 84.1 5 Dmitriev 95.8 83.2 57.7 100 84.2 6 Neledinskij–Meleckij 94.0 81.7 56.7 100 83.1 7 Kapnist 94.1 81.2 61.4 100 84.2 8 Batjuškov 95.3 94.5 47.5 100 84.3 9 Žukovskij 84.9 91.3 53.0 100 82.3 10 Puškin 81.5 94.5 42.8 100 79.7 11 Lermontov 83.1 92.1 46.1 100 80.3 12 Jazykov 78.8 97.9 34.9 100 77.9 13 Baratynskij 72.5 99.3 45.5 100 79.3 14 Benediktov 90.1 96.0 42.4 100 82.1 15 Tjutčev 80.7 89.6 42.6 100 78.2 16 K. Pavlova 82.0 87.9 54.5 100 81.1 17 Polonskij 83.9 92.8 52.4 100 82.3 18 Fet 76.7 94.3 44.6 100 78.9 19 Majkov 87.1 96.0 49.8 100 83.2 20 Mej 79.4 97.1 40.9 100 79.4 21 Nekrasov 86.4 92.9 41.8 100 80.3 22 A. K. Tolstoj 86.1 97.8 45.8 100 82.4 23 Slučevskij 87.6 94.6 45.9 100 82.0 24 Nadson 90.1 94.8 38.6 100 80.9 25 Merežkovskij 85.6 97.3 39.8 100 80.7 26 Sologub 75.5 95.5 47.5 100 79.6 27 Brjusov 87.7 91.9 52.0 100 82.9 28 V. Ivanov 86.4 91.4 54.0 100 83.0 29 Blok 81.0 87.7 52.7 100 80.4 30 Gorodeckij 87.0 98.2 54.0 100 84.8 199Russian Binary Meters. Part Two No. Author Rhythmic variations I II III IV V VI VII 1 Lomonosov 31.5 1.4 21.5 43.0 1.8 0.8 — 2 Deržavin 29.4 3.4 23.1 39.6 0.2 4.3 — 3 Bogdanovič 33.7 2.5 18.3 43.2 0.8 1.5 — 4 Ozerov ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 5 Dmitriev 39.9 1.8 16.0 39.1 0.8 2.4 — 6 Neledinskij-Meleckij ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 7 Kapnist 39.4 4.7 17.3 35.9 1.5 1.2 — 8 Batjuškov 39.3 3.5 4.7 50.5 0.8 1.2 — 9 Žukovskij 36.9 7.7 8.4 39.3 0.3 7.4 — 10 Puškin 29.0 8.4 5.4 47.0 0.1 10.1 — 11 Lermontov 31.0 7.2 7.9 44.2 — 9.7 — 12 Jazykov 26.2 6.9 1.8 50.5 0.3 14.3 — 13 Baratynskij 27.9 17.1 0.5 43.9 0.2 10.4 — 14 Benediktov 33.5 4.9 4.0 52.6 — 5.0 — 15 Tjutčev 26.0 6.5 10.1 44.3 0.3 12.8 — 16 K. Pavlova 32.6 10.4 11.4 37.5 0.5 7.4 0.2 17 Polonskij 36.1 9.4 6.9 40.6 0.3 6.7 — 18 Fet 26.0 12.9 5.7 45.0 — 10.4 — 19 Majkov 38.9 6.9 4.0 44.2 — 6.0 — 20 Mej 28.7 9.7 2.5 47.8 0.4 10.9 — 21 Nekrasov 28.5 6.2 7.1 50.8 — 7.4 — 22 A. K. Tolstoj 36.6 7.0 2.2 47.3 — 6.9 — 23 Slučevskij 35.6 5.4 4.9 46.6 0.5 7.0 — 24 Nadson 28.7 4.7 5.2 56.2 — 5.2 — 25 Merežkovskij 31.9 5.2 2.7 51.0 — 9.2 — 26 Sologub 30.9 12.1 4.5 40.1 — 12.4 — 27 Brjusov 37.7 6.2 8.1 41.9 — 6.1 — 28 V. Ivanov 41.4 4.4 8.2 36.4 0.4 9.2 — 29 Blok 30.0 11.1 11.6 38.7 0.7 7.9 — 30 Gorodeckij 44.1 8.1 1.8 41.1 — 4.9 —