In a similar fashion to other analyses, this review will only consider metrical variations in the verses. However, the common substitution of a trochee for an iamb at the start of a verse will not be analyze here. Some of Pope’s verses are what we call feminine, but I have not included all of them since many do not qualify as a metrical variation.

Pre-reading will always bring certain words to light as being slightly troublesome. However, this only occurs if the reader is intent on maintaining or forcing a pure iambic verse. In some cases this is not possible. The metrical accent and speech stress do not align and gives the reading a very unnatural sound and rhythm.

What is done here is to highlight the change of foot. There is no doubt whatsoever that Pope would have been concerned with what actual foot was being used. It would of no consequence to him at all, provided the rhythm is maintained no poet is going to be concerned about the foot.

Many would query the point of this exercise in analysis, and the short of it is that there is nothing here for the poet. This is a purely educational, academic and somewhat theoretical treatment of meter and so rhythm. The interest part is to look at the verse and see why it works. The beauty of it is that the poet would not plan it this way, it’s just how it comes along. A master like Pope has no concern for this, better to use his time writing, as should all poets irrespective of form.This poem is written as an epistle, but uses a dialogue form. This is indicated by the use of initials P. and A., representing Pope himself and Arbuthnot. Naturally, these letters are not sounded in the reading, but will help the reader recognize the change of voice. The subtitle is not something to take notice of as it was given by Warburton in his edition of the Poetical Works, 1751 and not by Pope.