the history of meter 21
with alliteration on either side of the caesura), the dactyls of the subtitle regu-
late the following alliterated lines:
Egbert and Ethelwolf, Ethelbald, Ethelbert
Ethelred, Alfred, and Edward and Athelston
Edmund and Edrid, and Edwy and Edgar
Edward and Ethelred, “Ironside” Edmund.^8Though these alliterative four-beat lines hint toward the dactylic pattern of
the title, they seem to Anglo-Saxonize the possibility of dactylic hexameter, so
that the subtitle reads, in retrospect, as a preview of the list to come—“A Met-
rical List of the Sovereigns of England” and then another subtitle: “The Angles
and Saxons.” Rather than civilize the Anglo-Saxon names into classical feet,
the accents of the subtitle stand out prominently. But Burt does not attempt
to make his metrical list imitate Anglo-Saxon meter so much as he uses the
naturally alliterating names of the sovereigns to hint at the common Anglo-
Saxon metrical patterns of two beats on either side of the caesura. At the same
time, Burt was conforming to a classical standard; dactylic hexameter was
widely known as the heroic classical meter of both Homer’s Iliad and Virgil’s
Aeneid. Though the title is certainly not signaling the classical nature of En-
gland’s history, the gesture to an epic meter with the Anglo-Saxon beats inside
it makes the names of England’s earliest leaders seem appropriately epic them-
selves. That is, the only appropriate meter for naming the founders of the En-
glish nation might be this hybrid of classical and ancient English patterning.
Burt adds the word “and” to make the verse even more dactylic when a regent’s
name comes up one unstressed syllable short: “Edward and Athelston,” the
“and” a conjunction that ties the rulers to one another, echoing the “d” ends of
their names, and filling the dactylic line.
Despite Burt’s metrical performance, joining the alliterative Anglo-Saxon,
four-beat line to the dactylic pattern, he states early on that his primary goal
is a proficiency in pedagogical transmission of historical fact. In the preface,
Burt offers his Metrical Epitome to the British public with “extreme diffidence”
and “fears . . . of [his] skill in versification” (iii). Yet he has assurance, despite
these fears, that the details and facts of the Epitome “may be looked upon with
all confidence.” From diffidence in versification to confidence in the presented
facts, Burt prefers to bolster the historical accuracy of his account as the most
valuable feature of his Epitome and downplay the potential faults in the verse
form. He assures the reader that he has included all “leading features” of Eng-
land’s history but purposefully excluded any reference to the “more poetical
incidents” (iii) in the record, thus protecting the reader from unnecessary (and
potentially un-heroic) distraction. The “students of our History” (iii) who are
his hoped-for audience should not be concerned with aesthetics, but should
find the verses in which the facts are delivered to be simply the most effective