Aquilius, Latin metre
Paris
I'm trying to translate a fragment of Aquilius' 'Boeotia' into Swedish verse. O. Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis fragmenta II (Leipzig 1898) gives the text as follows:
Vt illúm di perdant, prímus qui horas répperit,
Quique ádeo primus státuit hic solárium!
Qui míhi comminuit mísero articulatím diem.
Does anyone know what this metre is called, and what constitutes it?
--
Paris @ http://www.student.lu.se/~liv99psa/index.html
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> Hi!
> I'm trying to translate a fragment of Aquilius' 'Boeotia' into Swedish verse. O. Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis fragmenta II (Leipzig 1898) gives the text as follows:
> Vt illúm di perdant, prímus qui horas répperit,
> Quique ádeo primus státuit hic solárium!
> Qui míhi comminuit mísero articulatím diem.
> Does anyone know what this metre is called, and what constitutes it?
> Paris @ http://www.student.lu.se/~liv99psa/index.html
(ut) illúm / di pér/dant prí/mus qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus stá/tuit híc / solá/riúm
qui míhi / commínu/it míse/r[o] artícu/latím / diém
This verse, the *iambic senar*, is one of the most common verse types of the (Archaic) Latin stage poetry; as is indicated by the terminus technicus *iambic senar*, this verse
theoretically consists of six iambs, i.e. of six patterns *v-'*, where *v* is a metrically short syllable without ictus (= verse accent), and where *-'* is a metrically long
syllable with ictus. Because in many places of this senar it was allowed to replace the Senkung *v* by a *vv* or by a *-* and / or to replace the Hebung *-'* by a *v'v* (so
that, e.g., in the foot "com-mínu" the long syllable *com* is the Senkung and the two short syllables *mínu* together are the Hebung), the resulting verses are near to prose
and thus, imo, rather ugly when compared to a dactylic hexameter or even to a lyric verse.
The word "ut" at the very beginning of your text is an additional problem, because at least to me it seems to be one superfluous syllable which doesn't fit into the verse
pattern; but there may have existed a special rule allowing an Auftakt like "ut". Maybe some truely classical citizen of the present group knows ....
Best wishes,
Axel
(please follow-up to: humanities.classics)
William C Waterhouse
"Paris" <par.san...@student.lu.se> writes:
> Hi!
>
> I'm trying to translate a fragment of Aquilius' 'Boeotia' into Swedish =
> verse. O. Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis fragmenta II (Leipzig =
> 1898) gives the text as follows:
>
> Quique =E1deo primus st=E1tuit hic sol=E1rium!
> Qui m=EDhi comminuit m=EDsero articulat=EDm diem.
Dr. Axel Bergmann has already said that this is iambic senarius, a
common "conversational" meter in Roman comedy. I just want to add
a few remarks (which may already be known to the questioner):
1) The full fragment has 9 lines.
2) It is discussed by Aulus Gellius (Book III, 3).
3) The discussion there says that though the work came down with the
name of Aquil(l)ius, Varro argued that it was actually by Plautus
(and Aulus Gellius agrees). Modern citations of it that I have seen
(in discussions of timekeeping in Rome) attribute it to Plautus.
William C. Waterhouse
Penn State
Paris
Pär
"Dr. Axel Bergmann" <berg...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE> skrev i meddelandet news:38BF59AE...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE...
> > Paris wrote:
>
> > Hi!
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> (ut) illúm / di pér/dant prí/mus qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
>
> quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus stá/tuit híc / solá/riúm
ooops ... not yet completely Roman: one foot separation is false: must be (because "statuit" has a vocalically short *a*) of course:
quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus státu/it híc / solá/riúm
-- for a non-Roman these verses are, imo, only metrically computable but not naturally chantable ... ugly indeed.
BW,
A.
> qui míhi / commínu/it míse/r[o] artícu/latím / diém
> (please follow-up to: humanities.classics)
Paris
"Dr. Axel Bergmann" <berg...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE> skrev i meddelandet news:38C433BA...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE...
> > Axel Bergmann wrote:
>
> > (ut) illúm / di pér/dant prí/mus qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
> >
> > quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus stá/tuit híc / solá/riúm
>
> ooops ... not yet completely Roman: one foot separation is false: must be (because "statuit" has a vocalically short *a*) of course:
>
> quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus státu/it híc / solá/riúm
>
> -- for a non-Roman these verses are, imo, only metrically computable but not naturally chantable ... ugly indeed.
>
Indeed! Do you know the origin of this verse? Is it a descendant of the Greek iambic trimetre? I thought all latin verse, except for the saturnalic, was Greek in origin.
Paris
"William C Waterhouse" <w...@math.psu.edu> skrev
> 1) The full fragment has 9 lines.
>
> 2) It is discussed by Aulus Gellius (Book III, 3).
>
> 3) The discussion there says that though the work came down with the
> name of Aquil(l)ius, Varro argued that it was actually by Plautus
> (and Aulus Gellius agrees). Modern citations of it that I have seen
> (in discussions of timekeeping in Rome) attribute it to Plautus.
I did see in Ribbeck's edition that Varro and Gellius attributed it to Plautus. Do you know if there is a modern edition of Plautus' fragments in which it appears?
Many thanks for the input, both of you. Here's the result (although probably not very intelligible to you...), a translation into Swedish 'iambic senarius', probably the first in history! :-) I have allowed an occasional anapaest; tribrachs or dactylic feet are incompatible with the iambic stress rythm.
Må gúdarná förgöra dén som tímmarná
uppfánn och hós oss först ett sólur sátte úpp,
den sóm min dág, jag olýckligé, i bítar slóg.
När jág var bárn min máge énda sóluret vár
och bäst och mést exákt av álla éra úr!
Den sáde ”tíd att äta” såvída det ej sáknades mát:
när nú där fínns, må ej ätas óm ej sólen víll.
Följáktligén så fýlls av sólur stáden úpp
och av húnger tórkar större délen av fólket út.
P. Sandin
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> > Axel Bergmann skrev:
> > > Axel Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > (1) (ut) illúm / di pér/dant = prí/mus = qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
> > >
> > (>) (2) quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus = státu/it = híc / solá/riúm
( > > >) (3) qui míhi / commínu/it = míse/r[o] ar?tícu/latím / diém
> > -- for a non-Roman these verses are, imo, only metrically computable but not naturally
> > chantable ... ugly indeed.
> Indeed! Do you know the origin of this verse? Is it a descendant of the Greek iambic trimetre?
Yes. And some specialists (amongst whom I cannot be counted !) for the intricacies of Early Latin metrics teach that Plautus' iambic senar has a feature not regularily found
in the senars of the other Roman poets, viz. that Plautus' senar tends to regularily have a Wortende (= Engl. "word boundary" ?) after the 5th and after the 8th foot
element, i.e. (expressed by means of another terminology) a caesura in the 3rd iamb _and_ a caesura in the 4th iamb; which feature will make Plautus' senar more naturally
chantable, and therefore less ugly, than the senar of the other poets. This rule is obeyed in (1) and (2) and by the caesura in the 3rd iamb of (3). Before we start to
discuss whether in Early Roman times it was allowed to metrically understand the verse (3) as * ..... míse/ro = [a]rtícu/latím .....*, I suggest you to check the metric
facts after the 5th and 8th foot elements within the other 'Aquilius'-verses quoted by Gellius.
> I thought all latin verse, except for the saturnalic, was Greek in origin.
This is true for _Classical_ Latin verse _only_.
Robert Stonehouse
>> Axel Bergmann wrote:
>
>> (ut) illúm / di pér/dant prí/mus qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
>>
>> quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus stá/tuit híc / solá/riúm
>
>ooops ... not yet completely Roman: one foot separation is false: must be (because "statuit" has a vocalically short *a*) of course:
>
> quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus státu/it híc / solá/riúm
>
>-- for a non-Roman these verses are, imo, only metrically computable but not naturally chantable ... ugly indeed.
>
>BW,
>A.
>
>> qui míhi / commínu/it míse/r[o] artícu/latím / diém
Can it not be:
quiqu[e] á/deo prí/mus stá/tuit híc /solá/riúm
allowing two shorts (replacing a possible long) in the first
position of feet 2 and 4?
Purely subjectively, this seems to me to give a natural and lively
spoken rhythm (not sung or chanted) as we find it very often on
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. As I understand it, the
senarius, being based on the Greek trimeter, is a spoken metre, not
a sung one.
The fact that the senarius (six feet, 'seni pedes') is based on the
trimeter ('tria metra', three metrical units) explains why there
are special rules for even-numbered feet. In origin, odd-numbered
feet form a single unit with even-numbered feet that folllow them.
So the rules are rules for the 'metron'; it is only when we divide
one 'metron' into two feet that things get complicated. See Edsger
Dijkstra on the provision of lavatories in railway carriages.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> >> Axel Bergmann wrote:
> >> (ut) illúm / di pér/dant prí/mus qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
> >> quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus státu/it híc / solá/riúm
> >> qui míhi / commínu/it míse/r[o] artícu/latím / diém
> Can it not be:
> [1]quiqu[e] á/[2]deo prí/[3]mus stá/[4]tuit híc /[5]solá/[6]riúm
> allowing two shorts (replacing a possible long) in the first
> position of feet 2 and 4?
Latin verse is either purely 'chanted' (i.e. some defined rhythm of metrically long and metrically short syllables only: e.g. Vergil's
hexameter), or purely 'spoken' (i.e. some defined rhythm of stress-accentuated and stress-non-accentuated syllables only: e.g. the *Dies
irae* by Thomas of Celano), or both 'chanted' and 'spoken' (e.g. Plautus' iambic senarius). It may be added that standard modern German
verse is purely 'spoken', but that, e.g., the English verse of L. Cohen's lyrics is both 'spoken' and 'chanted'. Now Plautus' senarius
_basically_ is a 'chanted' = 'quantitating' verse, because one of its -- few -- rules is that the iamb's strong element _(= the iamb's
Hebung) must be two metrical units long_: which 2 metrical units mostly can be effected by either one metrically long syllable (plus one
stress-accent providing the verse's 'spokenness') *-'* or two metrically short syllables (plus one stress-accent on the first of these
two shorts) *v'v*. Contrarily the iamb's weak element (= the iamb's Senkung) mostly is free in being either 1 or 2 m.u. long, which
longnesses may be effected by *v* (1 m.u.), *vv* (2 m.u.), or *-* (2 m.u.). It is, therefore, definitely _not_ possible for a Plautine
iambic verse foot to be *-v'*, as is proposed by your analysis "[1]quiqu(e) á/..." and "[3]mus stá/..." (note that "quique" has a
vocalically long *i*, that *mus* is by position a metrically long syllable, and that both *a*s are short vowels).
My Classics encyclopaedia says that basically all this is true for the original Greek iambic trimeter also.
> Purely subjectively, this seems to me to give a natural and lively
> spoken rhythm (not sung or chanted) as we find it very often on
> humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. As I understand it, the
> senarius, being based on the Greek trimeter, is a spoken metre, not
> a sung one.
> The fact that the senarius (six feet, 'seni pedes') is based on the
> trimeter ('tria metra', three metrical units) explains why there
> are special rules for even-numbered feet. In origin, odd-numbered
> feet form a single unit with even-numbered feet that folllow them.
> So the rules are rules for the 'metron'; it is only when we divide
> one 'metron' into two feet that things get complicated.
> See Edsger Dijkstra on the provision of lavatories in railway
???
> carriages.
Best wishes,Axel
Paris
"Dr. Axel Bergmann" <berg...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE> skrev
> Latin verse is either purely 'chanted' (i.e. some defined rhythm of metrically long and metrically short syllables only: e.g. Vergil's
> hexameter), or purely 'spoken' (i.e. some defined rhythm of stress-accentuated and stress-non-accentuated syllables only: e.g. the *Dies
> irae* by Thomas of Celano), or both 'chanted' and 'spoken' (e.g. Plautus' iambic senarius). It may be added that standard modern German
> verse is purely 'spoken', but that, e.g., the English verse of L. Cohen's lyrics is both 'spoken' and 'chanted'. Now Plautus' senarius
> _basically_ is a 'chanted' = 'quantitating' verse, because one of its -- few -- rules is that the iamb's strong element _(= the iamb's
> Hebung) must be two metrical units long_: which 2 metrical units mostly can be effected by either one metrically long syllable (plus one
> stress-accent providing the verse's 'spokenness') *-'* or two metrically short syllables (plus one stress-accent on the first of these
> two shorts) *v'v*.
This, I think, are the rules for scansion (Skandierung?) in languages such as German and Swedish. But the Grammars say that Latin accents are *pitch* accents, and thus indpendent of rythm, i thionk. This question was up before, and led us to Kühner's Latin grammar (2. Aufl. von F. Holzweisig, Hannover 1912), §49.2, p.237.:
'The accent (Betonung) must like the Greek one (see Kühner, Ausführl. Gr.
der Griech. Sprache I. § 76) be seen as a *musical* one (i. e. pitch-accent)
and is also conceived as such by ancient grammarians ... As the Greek and
Latin accent depends on the 'High' and 'Low' of a tone, so does the Greman
one depend on the 'Strong' and 'Weak'.
In scansion, as well in modern verse translations of ancient poetry, we use stress accent to mark the 'Hebung' of the feet, but this has, I believe, no counterpart in ancient latin, where the Hebung is marked only by the (vowel- or position-) length.
Here is the full fragment of Aquilius'/Plautus' Boeotia with the actual (pitch) accents and a tentative metrical analysis:
(the first is analysed in a way that preserves the 'ut'; is not this possible?)
ut íl-/lum dí / pérdant, / prímus / qu'hóras / répperit
(the last iamb is in effect a dactyl, just as the one beginning the next verse:)
quíqu[e] áde/o prí/mus státu/it híc / solá/rium
quí míhi / commínu/it míse/r[o] articu/látim / díem
N[am] <únum> / me púe-/ro vén-/ter érat / solá-/rium
Múlt[o] óm-/ni[um] is-/tór[um] óp-/tum[um] ét / verís-/simum:
Vb[i]vis / moné-/bat és-/se, nísi / quóm níl / érat.
Núnc éti-/am quóm [é]st, / non és-/tur, nísi / sóli / lúbet.
(The following verse is deathdefying with all its elisions: do you think this is a right analysis?)
Ítaqu[e] á-/de[o] [iám] op-/plét[um] óp-/pidum [e]st / solá-/riis,
Maíor / párs pópu-/l[i] <i[am]> á-/ridi / réptant / fáme.
The rule "that Plautus' senar tends to regularily have a Wortende (word end) after the 5th and after the 8th foot
element, i.e. (expressed by means of another terminology) a caesura in the 3rd iamb _and_ a caesura in (after?) the 4th iamb" -- is, as far as I can see, followed in most verses (only 'articulatim' in the third verse forbids the latter caesura). Perhaps Gellius was right to speak of the verses as 'Plautinissimi'.
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> > Axel Bergmann skrev:
>
> > Latin verse is either purely 'chanted' (i.e. some defined rhythm of metrically long and metrically short syllables only: e.g. Vergil's
> > hexameter), or purely 'spoken' (i.e. some defined rhythm of stress-accentuated and stress-non-accentuated syllables only: e.g. the *Dies
> > irae* by Thomas of Celano), or both 'chanted' and 'spoken' (e.g. Plautus' iambic senarius). It may be added that standard modern German
> > verse is purely 'spoken', but that, e.g., the English verse of L. Cohen's lyrics is both 'spoken' and 'chanted'. Now Plautus' senarius
> > _basically_ is a 'chanted' = 'quantitating' verse, because one of its -- few -- rules is that the iamb's strong element _(= the iamb's
> > Hebung) must be two metrical units long_: which 2 metrical units mostly can be effected by either one metrically long syllable (plus one
> > stress-accent providing the verse's 'spokenness') *-'* or two metrically short syllables (plus one stress-accent on the first of these
> > two shorts) *v'v*.
> This, I think, are the rules for scansion (Skandierung?) in languages such as German and Swedish. But the Grammars say that Latin accents are *pitch* accents, and thus indendent of rhythm,
In my personal philological terminology (or jargon) by the expression *[binary] rhythm* _all and every_ well-defined series of *this A is x* and *this A is non-x* is meant, so that for me also a series of pitch-accentuated and pitch-non-accentuated syllables is a rhythm.
> I think. This question was up before, and led us to Kühner's Latin grammar (2. Aufl. von F. Holzweisig, Hannover 1912), §49.2, p.237.:
> 'The accent (Betonung) must like the Greek one (see Kühner, Ausführl. Gr.
> der Griech. Sprache I. § 76) be seen as a *musical* one (i. e. pitch-accent)
> and is also conceived as such by ancient grammarians ... As the Greek and
> Latin accent depends on the 'High' and 'Low' of a tone, so does the Greman
> one depend on the 'Strong' and 'Weak'.
> In scansion, as well in modern verse translations of ancient poetry, we use stress accent to mark the 'Hebung' of the feet, but this has, I believe, no counterpart in ancient latin, where the Hebung is marked only
As I did say: I think this is true, e.g., for Vergil's hexameter. But do you, on the other hand, really believe that generally it is possible (or that on Archaic Roman theater stages it was possible) to declamate a Latin iambic senarius in a natural and -- ut ita dicam -- scaenically correct way _without_ using _any_
verse-accent ?
> by the (vowel- or position-) length.
> Here is the full fragment of Aquilius'/Plautus' Boeotia <Gellius *N.A.* III, 3, 5> with the actual (pitch) accents and a tentative metrical analysis:
>
> (the first is analysed in a way that preserves the 'ut'; is not this possible?)
>
> (1) ut íl-/lum dí / pérdant, / prímus / qu'hóras / répperit
>
> (the last iamb is in effect a dactyl,
This was _not allowed_ in the original Greek iambic trimeter as well as in the thence adapted Latin iambic senarius, where the _last_ iamb of each verse _always_ had to be effected as *v-'*.
> just as the one beginning the next verse:)
AB(1) (ut) illúm / di pér/dant = prí/mus = qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
> (2) quíqu[e] áde/o prí/mus státu/it híc / solá/rium
AB(2) quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus = státu/it = híc / solá/riúm
> (3) quí míhi / commínu/it míse/r[o] articu/látim / díem
AB(3) qui míhi / commínu/it = míse/ro = [a]rtícu/latím / diém
(I elided the *[a]* of "[a]rticulatim" [i.e. _not_ the *o* of "misero"] in order to give way for that typically Plautinic caesura [dividing the iambic foot in its mid, i.e. dividing the Senkung from the Hebung, by means of a word-end] in the 4th foot.)
(This is a _iambic_ verse: why, then, do you propose trochaic[ally accentuated] feet like *látim* and *díem* ?)
> (4) N[am] <únum> / me púe-/ro vén-/ter érat / solá-/rium
AB(4) n[am] unúm / me púe/ro = vén/ter = érat /solá/riúm
> (5) Múlt[o] óm-/ni[um] is-/tór[um] óp-/tum[um] ét / verís-/simum:
AB(5) mult[o] óm/ni[um] ís/tor[um] = óp/tum[um] = ét / verís/simúm
> (6) Vb[i]vis / moné-/bat és-/se, nísi / quóm níl / érat.
AB(6) ubivís / moné/bat = és/se = nísi / quom níl / erát
> (7) Núnc éti-/am quóm [é]st, / non és-/tur, nísi / sóli / lúbet.
AB(7) nunc éti/am quóm [e]st / non = és/tur = nísi / solí / lubét
> (The following verse is deathdefying with all its elisions: do you think this is a right analysis?)
>
> (8) Ítaqu[e] á-/de[o] [iám] op-/plét[um] óp-/pidum [e]st / solá-/riis,
AB(8) itaqu[e] áde/o j[am] óp/plet[um] = óp/pid[úm] = ést / solá/riís
(Note that _all_ the syllables of the first foot of verse (8) are metrically short; or put in the appropriate technical jargon: the first foot of (8) is *proceleusmatic*, which [effected !] foot form of a [essentially !] iambic foot may be represented as *vvv'v* [cf. -- his doctoral dissertation if my memory doesn't fraud me
-- the very good book by Axel Wilhelm AHLBERG, *De proceleusmaticis iamborum trochaeorumque antiquae scaenicae poesis Latinae: Studia metrica et prosodiaca I, II*, Lundae: Möller, 1900; 161, 30 pp.].)
(Once again: I introduced the uncommon mode of elision -- /pid[um] est/ instead of the normal aphaeresis /pidum [e]st/ -- to give way for the caesura "=" which in the fourth foot is, according to the specialists in this field of Latin philology, typical for Plautus' iambic senarius.)
> (9) Maíor / párs pópu-/l[i] <i[am]> á-/ridi / réptant / fáme.
AB(9 Hertz) maiór / pars pópu/li = <j[am]> á/ridí / reptánt / famé
AB(9 Ritschl) maiór / pars pópu/l[i] <ut> = á/ridí / rept<é>nt / famé
AB(9 Bergmann) maiór / pars pópu/li = á/rid[i] = <út> / rept<é>nt / famé
(If my senile memory doesn't fail me, then hiatus in the caesura of the third foot of Plautus' iambic senarius is allowed. Of course I chose exactly _this_ my own emendation of verse [9] in order to allow the Plautinic caesura to be made in the 4th foot ... (-: .)
> The rule "that Plautus' senar tends to regularily have a Wortende (word end) after the 5th and after the 8th foot
> element, i.e. (expressed by means of another terminology) a caesura in the 3rd iamb _and_ a caesura in
Indeed "_in_" : see above !
> <(after?)> the 4th iamb" -- is, as far as I can see, followed in most
.... _now_ in _all_ verses .... ((-:
> verses (only 'articulatim' in the third verse forbids the latter caesura). Perhaps Gellius was right to speak of the verses as 'Plautinissimi'.
Best wishes (including wishing you a very nice week-end),
Axel
(Please follow-up to *h.c*.)
Paris
"Dr. Axel Bergmann" <berg...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE> skrev
Now Plautus' senarius
> > > _basically_ is a 'chanted' = 'quantitating' verse, because one of its -- few -- rules is that the iamb's strong element _(= the iamb's
> > > Hebung) must be two metrical units long_: which 2 metrical units mostly can be effected by either one metrically long syllable (plus one
> > > stress-accent providing the verse's 'spokenness') *-'* or two metrically short syllables (plus one stress-accent on the first of these
> > > two shorts) *v'v*.
>
> > This, I think, are the rules for scansion (Skandierung?) in languages such as German and Swedish. But the Grammars say that Latin accents are *pitch* accents, and thus indendent of rhythm,
>
> In my personal philological terminology (or jargon) by the expression *[binary] rhythm* _all and every_ well-defined series of *this A is x* and *this A is non-x* is meant, so that for me also a series of pitch-accentuated and pitch-non-accentuated syllables is a rhythm.
>
> > I think. This question was up before, and led us to Kühner's Latin grammar (2. Aufl. von F. Holzweisig, Hannover 1912), §49.2, p.237.:
> > 'The accent (Betonung) must like the Greek one (see Kühner, Ausführl. Gr.
> > der Griech. Sprache I. § 76) be seen as a *musical* one (i. e. pitch-accent)
> > and is also conceived as such by ancient grammarians ... As the Greek and
> > Latin accent depends on the 'High' and 'Low' of a tone, so does the Greman
> > one depend on the 'Strong' and 'Weak'.
> > In scansion, as well in modern verse translations of ancient poetry, we use stress accent to mark the 'Hebung' of the feet, but this has, I believe, no counterpart in ancient latin, where the Hebung is marked only
>
> As I did say: I think this is true, e.g., for Vergil's hexameter. But do you, on the other hand, really believe that generally it is possible (or that on Archaic Roman theater stages it was possible) to declamate a Latin iambic senarius in a natural and -- ut ita dicam -- scaenically correct way _without_ using _any_
> verse-accent ?
Actually, I have a really hard time to imagine *spoken language per se* without stress accent. Here in Sweden, where academics generally are progressive rather than conservative ;-), we are encouraged in seminars/classes to read Latin verse (and prose) with pitch accents, and quantitative rhythm; of course, it sounds like a bad joke. The ones who try it are usually unable not to let the accents mark the rhythm; and sometimes they confuse it all together and attempt to place *pitch accents* on the Hebung, i.e. where they expect the iktus to be.
This is what the modern handbooks have told me (not to say that I've often doubted it): the 'iktus' or verse-accent supposed by older metricians is a mistake: the ancients measured rhythmical verse by syllabic length only, even spoken iambic verse. At least this is (supposed to be) so in Greek verse. It was maintained by Madvig (grammar 1841, metrical handbook 1857) and later by Nietzsche (lectures 1870-71). The issue was controversial still in the beginning of the 20th century (debated in AJPh in 1898 and -99, article also by G. Schultz in Hermes 1900), but Karl Meister, A. Meillet, Paul Maas, W.J.W. Koster and A.M. Dale all deny the existence of the iktus, and I don't think any Greek metrician today defends it (the last I know of is E. Kalinka, Griech.-röm. Metrik, JFKA 250, 1935 and 256-7, 1937) [exposé from A. Wifstrand, _Grekisk metrik_, Lund 1965].
I assumed the same went for Latin metrics (it is teached that way at my university).
> > Here is the full fragment of Aquilius'/Plautus' Boeotia <Gellius *N.A.* III, 3, 5> with the actual (pitch) accents and a tentative metrical analysis:
> >
> > (the first is analysed in a way that preserves the 'ut'; is not this possible?)
> >
> > (1) ut íl-/lum dí / pérdant, / prímus / qu'hóras / répperit
> >
> > (the last iamb is in effect a dactyl,
>
> This was _not allowed_ in the original Greek iambic trimeter as well as in the thence adapted Latin iambic senarius, where the _last_ iamb of each verse _always_ had to be effected as *v-'*.
Of course. The last syllable is always long by position, so my analysis would result in -v-, which is of course impossible.
But the senarius otherwise obviously takes very great liberties with the old Greek trimeter: for instance, spondées (i.e. long 'senkung') were in the trim. allowed only in the first, third and fifth iamb. In this verse (as well as very many of the others) all 'iambs' are spondées!
>
> AB(1) (ut) illúm / di pér/dant = prí/mus = qu[i] hó/ras rép/perít
>
> > (2) quíqu[e] áde/o prí/mus státu/it híc / solá/rium
>
> AB(2) quiqu[e] áde/o prí/mus = státu/it = híc / solá/riúm
>
> > (3) quí míhi / commínu/it míse/r[o] articu/látim / díem
>
> AB(3) qui míhi / commínu/it = míse/ro = [a]rtícu/latím / diém
>
> (I elided the *[a]* of "[a]rticulatim" [i.e. _not_ the *o* of "misero"] in order to give way for that typically Plautinic caesura [dividing the iambic foot in its mid, i.e. dividing the Senkung from the Hebung, by means of a word-end] in the 4th foot.)
> (This is a _iambic_ verse: why, then, do you propose trochaic[ally accentuated] feet like *látim* and *díem* ?)
My purpose was to show that the accents are independent of the rhythm: the -im and -em are long by position, which is enough to make a Hebung. The (pitch) accents on the Senkungs á and í do not make those syllables long, or stressed, but imply only a slight raise of pitch in the pronouncement. I placed the accents as they would appear in normal, spoken Latin.
> > (4) N[am] <únum> / me púe-/ro vén-/ter érat / solá-/rium
>
> AB(4) n[am] unúm / me púe/ro = vén/ter = érat /solá/riúm
>
> > (5) Múlt[o] óm-/ni[um] is-/tór[um] óp-/tum[um] ét / verís-/simum:
>
> AB(5) mult[o] óm/ni[um] ís/tor[um] = óp/tum[um] = ét / verís/simúm
>
> > (6) Vb[i]vis / moné-/bat és-/se, nísi / quóm níl / érat.
>
> AB(6) ubivís / moné/bat = és/se = nísi / quom níl / erát
Do you allow vv-, then, in the first 'jamb'?
> > (7) Núnc éti-/am quóm [é]st, / non és-/tur, nísi / sóli / lúbet.
>
> AB(7) nunc éti/am quóm [e]st / non = és/tur = nísi / solí / lubét
>
> > (The following verse is deathdefying with all its elisions: do you think this is a right analysis?)
> >
> > (8) Ítaqu[e] á-/de[o] [iám] op-/plét[um] óp-/pidum [e]st / solá-/riis,
>
> AB(8) itaqu[e] áde/o j[am] óp/plet[um] = óp/pid[úm] = ést / solá/riís
>
> (Note that _all_ the syllables of the first foot of verse (8) are metrically short; or put in the appropriate technical jargon: the first foot of (8) is *proceleusmatic*, which [effected !] foot form of a [essentially !] iambic foot may be represented as *vvv'v*
The Senkung may, then, be represented as vv! This is allowed in Greek iambic trimeter only in personal names, I think (although the comic iambics are freer).
[cf. -- his doctoral dissertation if my memory doesn't fraud me
> -- the very good book by Axel Wilhelm AHLBERG, *De proceleusmaticis iamborum trochaeorumque antiquae scaenicae poesis Latinae: Studia metrica et prosodiaca I, II*, Lundae: Möller, 1900; 161, 30 pp.].)
I am honoured to live in the same town as Ahlberg did. His Latin-Swedish dictionary is still standard in Swedish schools, and from his grammar I learned the language (much better than I would if I had taken Latin in the deplorable Swedish Gymnasium).
> (Once again: I introduced the uncommon mode of elision -- /pid[um] est/ instead of the normal aphaeresis /pidum [e]st/ -- to give way for the caesura "=" which in the fourth foot is, according to the specialists in this field of Latin philology, typical for Plautus' iambic senarius.)
>
> > (9) Maíor / párs pópu-/l[i] <i[am]> á-/ridi / réptant / fáme.
>
> AB(9 Hertz) maiór / pars pópu/li = <j[am]> á/ridí / reptánt / famé
>
> AB(9 Ritschl) maiór / pars pópu/l[i] <ut> = á/ridí / rept<é>nt / famé
>
> AB(9 Bergmann) maiór / pars pópu/li = á/rid[i] = <út> / rept<é>nt / famé
> (If my senile memory doesn't fail me, then hiatus in the caesura of the third foot of Plautus' iambic senarius is allowed. Of course I chose exactly _this_ my own emendation of verse [9] in order to allow the Plautinic caesura to be made in the 4th foot ... (-: .)
>
> > The rule "that Plautus' senar tends to regularily have a Wortende (word end) after the 5th and after the 8th foot
> > element, i.e. (expressed by means of another terminology) a caesura in the 3rd iamb _and_ a caesura in
>
> Indeed "_in_" : see above !
>
> > <(after?)> the 4th iamb" -- is, as far as I can see, followed in most
>
> .... _now_ in _all_ verses .... ((-:
<deep bow>
> Best wishes (including wishing you a very nice week-end),
> Axel
>
Thank you! And the same to you.
Pär
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> [A.B.:] > > > Now Plautus' senarius
> > > > _basically_ is a 'chanted' = 'quantitating' verse, because one of its -- few -- rules is that the iamb's strong element _(= the iamb's
> > > > Hebung) must be two metrical units long_: which 2 metrical units mostly can be effected by either one metrically long syllable (plus one
> > > > stress-accent providing the verse's 'spokenness') *-'* or two metrically short syllables (plus one stress-accent on the first of these
> > > > two shorts) *v'v*.
> > > This, I think, are the rules for scansion (Skandierung?) in languages such as German and Swedish. But the Grammars say that Latin accents are *pitch* accents, and thus independent of rhythm,
> [A.B.] > In my personal philological terminology (or jargon) by the expression *[binary] rhythm* _all and every_ well-defined series of *this A is x* and *this A is non-x* is meant, so that for me also a series of pitch-accentuated and pitch-non-accentuated syllables is a rhythm.
> > > I think. This question was up before, and led us to Kühner's Latin grammar (2. Aufl. von F. Holzweisig, Hannover 1912), §49.2, p.237.:
> > > 'The accent (Betonung) must like the Greek one (see Kühner, Ausführl. Gr.
> > > der Griech. Sprache I. § 76) be seen as a *musical* one (i. e. pitch-accent)
> > > and is also conceived as such by ancient grammarians ... As the Greek and
> > > Latin accent depends on the 'High' and 'Low' of a tone, so does the Greman
> > > one depend on the 'Strong' and 'Weak'.
> > > In scansion, as well in modern verse translations of ancient poetry, we use stress accent to mark the 'Hebung' of the feet, but this has, I believe, no counterpart in ancient latin, where the Hebung is marked only
> [A.B.] > As I did say: I think this is true, e.g., for Vergil's hexameter. But do you, on the other hand, really believe that generally it is possible (or that on Archaic Roman theater stages it was possible) to declamate a Latin iambic senarius in a natural and -- ut ita dicam -- scaenically correct way _without_ using _any_
> > verse-accent ?
> Actually, I have a really hard time to imagine *spoken language per se* without stress accent. Here in Sweden, where academics generally are progressive rather than conservative ;-), we are encouraged in seminars/classes to read Latin verse (and prose) with pitch accents, and quantitative rhythm; of course, it sounds like a bad joke. The ones who try it are usually unable not to let the accents mark the rhythm; and sometimes they confuse it all together and attempt to place *pitch accents* on the Hebung, i.e. where they expect the iktus to be.
> This is what the modern handbooks have told me (not to say that I've often doubted it): the 'iktus' or verse-accent supposed by older metricians is a mistake: the ancients measured rhythmical verse by syllabic length only, even spoken iambic verse. At least this is (supposed to be) so in Greek verse. It was maintained by Madvig (grammar 1841, metrical handbook 1857) and later by Nietzsche (lectures 1870-71). The issue was controversial still in the beginning of the 20th century (debated in AJPh in 1898 and -99, article also by G. Schultz in Hermes 1900), but Karl Meister, A. Meillet, Paul Maas, W.J.W. Koster and A.M. Dale all deny the existence of the iktus, and I don't think any Greek metrician today defends it (the last I know of is E. Kalinka, Griech.-röm. Metrik, JFKA 250, 1935 and 256-7, 1937) [exposé from A. Wifstrand, _Grekisk metrik_, Lund 1965].
> I assumed the same went for Latin metrics (it is teached that way at my university).
Hmmm..... what do you think about the following syllogism ?
(A) Manu LEUMANN (who is _my_ hercules of Latin grammar), *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*, München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1977, § 244, p. 248, prefers concerning the "Akzentqualität im klassischen Latein" a "vermittelnde Auffassung [...]: vorwiegend _musikalisch_," (i.e. _pitchy_,) "doch auch _mit_ sprachwirksamem _stress_";
(B) there was (and obviously is !) _no_ possibility of orally / scaenically distinguishing an essentially iambic foot effected proceleusmatic from an essentially trochaic foot effected proceleusmatic _without some sort of verse accent = 'ictus'_, and therefore ictus must have existed at least in such verses that allowed proceleusmatic foot resolution;
(C) any interference, which obviously would be confusing and ugly, of the prosaic Latin word-accent with the Latin ictus should be avoided;
(D) even for skilled Roman actors it would have been _very_ difficult to suppress the prosaic word-accent of their everyday-speech: so that
(E) Plautus' iambic senarius should be considered as a verse (a) _basically defined_ as a rhythm of metrically either long or short syllables, (b) _conserving_ the prosaic Latin word-accent (which "vorwiegend" was a pitch accent), and (c) _additionally explaining_ the foot structures, i.e. the Hebung-Senkung-boundaries, by means of an ictus, which, according to (C), will be vorwiegend a stress accent.
I'll demonstrate this, by using the 'accenting' notation to indicate the position of the ictus, and by using (after the resp. vowels) the 'starring' notation to indicate the position of the preserved prosaic word-accent, in the verses (7) and (8) of our fragment:
> > (7) nu*nc é*ti/am quó*m [e]st / no*n = é*s/tur = ní*si / so*lí / lu*bét
> >
> > (8) i*taqu[e] á*de/o j[am] óp/ple*t[um] = ó*p/pid[um] = é*st / solá*/riís
And isn't it fascinating and most noteworthy (a) that within _all_ of the nine verses of our fragment between the two caesuras = .... = there is _always_ one and only one prosaically defined and complete word and (b) that within this 'caesuric' word the prosaic word-accent _always_ has coincidence with the verse-ictus ? Will someone of the citizens of humanities.classics (I can't, unfortunately, afford the time necessary for this enterprise) be so kind either to (affirmingly or negatively) generalize these my observations by reading & checking larger parts of Plautus' work, or to point me, if there is any, to the relevant philological research literature ?
Best wishes,
Axel
(Please follow-up to *humanities.classics*.)