صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

I need hardly remark that nor and and may carry a strong emphasis in English, especially when the form of the sentence is antithetical: both . . . and, neither ... nor. So also in French and Italian. And so evidently in Latin; for in such a sentence as,

[blocks in formation]

I suppose nobody denies that the actor emphasized his nec nec.

...

...

Ad. 292 nec quem ad obstetricem mittam nec qui accersat Aeschinum. Where single words are coupled in affirmation (both . . . and) or in negation (neither . . . nor), the words themselves may bear the emphasis (And. 420 nec istíc nec álibi tibi erit usquam in me mora), or the emphasis fall alternately on the word and the particle (Ad. 306 quem néque fides neque iusiurandum néque illum misericordia).

But in cases like Ad. 272 (just cited) or Hec. 747,

nam néque ille hoc animo erit aetatem, néque pol tu eadem ista aetate,

the negative particles themselves are naturally the high points of emphasis in recitation. So with a doubled et :

Phorm. 117 noster quid ageret nescire: ét illam ducere

cupiebat ét metuebat

('he did want to marry her and at the same time was afraid ').

The very shape and sense of the phrase would be destroyed by an actor who should fail to accent the et . . . et.

The following are illustrations:

Hec. 512 quando nec gnatus néque hic mi quicquam obtemperat.

Hec. 772 nec pól istae metuont deos neque has respicere deos opinor.

(has is emphatic, not recessive, because its case instantly suggests the point of the antithesis: nec has respiciunt di : 'they care nothing for the gods, nor for them do the gods care anything.")

But an ordinary unemphatic nec (and not ') has no such effect as the neque hic of Hec. 512:

Hec. 877 PAR. Immouero scio neque hoc imprudens feci . . .

Whereas, as has been pointed out many times in the course of these articles, quid hoc and ego hoc would be inadmissible.

So it is with is, iste, istic: their positional quantity is not reduced by an unemphatic et or nec preceding, unless there be initial intensity. Thus we have: Phorm. 588 scio ita esse et istaec mihi res sollicitudinist.

Ad. 558 rogitas? Ctesipho me pugnis miserum et istam psaltriam.

[ocr errors]

842 hodié modo hílarum fac te et istam psaltriam (te fac, Calliop.),

but it is not necessary to except

Ad. 511 bono animo fac sis, Sostr/ăta, et ist/am quod potes . . .

,, 521 ita fi/ăt-ět istoc siqui potis est rectius . . .

for 511 is perhaps spurious (Donatus) and in 521 et istoc is added aside (Don. again), i.e. after a pause; and all prove that a weak et will not do the trick.

and

Again, though initial intensity may give :

Andr. 924 et istaec una parua uirgo: tum ille egens forte applicat,
42 Et id gratum fuisse aduorsum te habeo gratiam.

Eun. 1080 Nec istum metuas ne amet mulier: facile pellas ubi uelis.

[blocks in formation]

Where the words are medial and not initial, we have:

Andr. 653 Scio: cum patre altercasti dudum et is nunc propterea tibi.
"840 credo, et id facturas Dauos dudum praedixit mihi.

For Eun. 570 neque is deductus etiamdum ad eam. Summonuit me Parmeno.
The variants suggest that the right reading is:

neque is étiamdum ád eam erát deductus.

We have seen that intensity varies in degree: the higher the emphasis on the Breviant syllable, the larger will be the range of Breviates. As might be expected, the power exerted by even the most emphatic et or nec is less than that exerted by quid or ego. Outside of the Recessive Demonstratives there is only Hec. 851, nam neque in-nuntio neque in-me-ipso tibi quid sit boni scio. Cf. Quid interea?, Ego in-portu (Andr. 480), etc., and a single (initial) neque intelleges, Phorm. 806.

There are still one or two hard cases to discuss:

(1) Eun. 160 PHAE. nisi si illum plus quam mé amas et istam nunc times (plus
amas quam me codd.: correxit Bentley)

quae aduectast, ne illum talem praeripiat tibi.
THAIS. Ego id timeo?

The reading is doubly objectionable, for et is unemphatic, and istam, since its relative follows (quae aduectast) normally requires to be in the forte of the foot (see C.Q. XVI., pp. 171-4). The only variant is in the Bembine Scholiast on Eun, 231:

et tam times.

Thais' answer, 'Ego id timeo?' suggests that Phaedria's words were: 'You shut the door on me; you let me in. Why? What can the reason be except that you love him better than me? That's why you're afraid of her. . . .

I.e. it (id) istam nunc times.

(2) Phorm. 1000 (cf. C.Q. XVI., p. 174):

PHORM. Recte sane, quando nihil times

et hoc nihil est quod ego dico, tu narra. DE. Scelus.

Initial et hoc is not in itself fatally objectionable, but it is objectionable that hoc should be in the faible and quod in the forte. I think we should repunctuate the phrase:

quando nihil times

et hoc nihil est; quód ego dico, tu narra

(You tell my story instead'). But an equally simple solution is to leave out hoc on the authority of D.

(3) Ad. 745 neque est neque illam sane studeo uendere.

This passage I have discussed elsewhere (Mnemosyne, Vol. L., P. 447), and suggested that for these lame and unmeaning words we should read:

nec istanc ancillam sane studeo uendere.

From Afranius ap. Ribb.,3 p. 238, nothing can safely be inferred. I read the line as iambic :

pro manibus ego illos credo habere <quemque> tentipellium.

(4) A curious and unique 1 phenomenon, hard to believe genuine, is Eun. 305: Unde is? CHAER. Egone? nescio hercle néque unde eam

neque quorsum eam.

egone nescio A; ego nescio Calliop. Not that the mere consonants nd are an obstacle: at least, Caecilius could write :

Quem neque quo pacto fallam nec quid inde2 auferam (Ribb., p. 79).

1 Not to be paralleled by Haut. 978,
SY. abiit. uah, rogasse uellem. CL. Quid?

...

SY. Unde mihi peterem cibum,

which is accounted for by the extreme rapidity of

Clitipho's interjection hardly interrupting Syrus'

sentence.

2 Doubtless nothing was heard but quid in.

As long as one had only to mutter the spell IKG, 'loi des iambes,' 'Breves Breviantes,' such things passed; but who can produce from Terence another example of an interrogative so reduced in quantity? And by a mere nec! Such an exertion of power would have been astonishing even for quis. Read:

Unde is? CHAER. Egone? Néc scio hercle ego únde eam
neque quórsum eam.

I have here confined myself to the consideration of nec iste, nec hic, and left nec ille alone. Perhaps an apology should be offered for my having in the former articles treated the abridgments of hic, iste, ipse, ille as all parallel. Ille should rather have been reserved to the category of esse. Whether Terence actually wrote ese, ile, nobody can tell; but the reduction of the positional quantity of istum or hunc is a different exercise of power in the Breviant.1

Nec ille is normal in Terence, whether nec be single or doubled, whether initial to the verse (Hec. 713, Haut. 215) or medial (Eun. 667, Phorm. 97).

Et ille, where et is doubled or emphasized, is found in Phorm. 117, Ad. 692, Ad. 523, Eun. 723, Hec. 599 (doubtful); and in the first foot frequently: Andr. 868, Phorm. 564, Ad. 694, Eun. 71, 498, Haut. 854, Hec. 112, 401.

Consequently I base no part of my argument on the recessive behaviour of ille, unless at least hic, is, iste are found behaving likewise.

However, a few special cases of et ille deserve a word:

(1) Phorm. 125-6 lex est ut orbae, qui sint genere proxumi,

eis nubant: et illos ducere eadem haec lex iubet.

(2) Hec. 344 laborem inanem ipsus capit et illi molestiam adfert.
(3) Eun. 383 deducar, et illis crucibus quae nos nostramque adulescentiam.
(4) Eun. 418-9
hominem perditum

miserumque et illum sacrilegum! TH. Quid illud, Gnatho. In (1) the form of the sentence lex est . . . eadem lex iubet makes the et emphatic. 'The orphan is bound, AND the kinsman is bound on his part.'

In (2) et would be better away: 'laborem inanem ipsus capit, illi . . .' The interpolation of an et is not unaccountable, for Low Latin does not like asyndeta, and the lengthening of capit was not within the scribe's habits. Credit him, and not Terence, with that et.

In (3) et is doubled, and illis is weak, pro articulo.

In (4) the text is so doubtful that it cannot safely be claimed as a sound example of et illum. Do not the letters QUE ET ILLUM rather represent some third adjective in the enumeration perditum, miserum,

[ocr errors]

sacrilegum ?

II. LAW OF THE DI-IAMBUS IN SENARII.

There is yet another manifestation of Iambic Law (the tendency in Latin to reduce - to uu) exhibited in a metrical fact which I do not remember to have seen referred to this cause: e.g. to take Dziatzko-Hauler, Phormio (p. 43) again as a convenient witness to the received view, they merely repeat the statement that a Latin senarius must not end in two iambi, unless these form a group such as malám-crucem, or contain an elision. The fact is certain; both Plautus and Terence, and all the other comic writers in the extant fragments, do eschew the ending iamb+iamb. But what is the rationale of this restriction? We can now correlate it with a number of other facts. It is a measure taken by the poets against the besetting sin of gabbling. The Latin poets give much more weight to their lines than the Greek: not only Ennius, whose verses came bumping and crashing on to the stage,' as Horace (A.P. 260) remarks, but the classical hexameter-poets systematically, by the practice of inverting the accent, put a brake on the runaway speed of the verse. A Virgilian hexameter has seldom less than two such inversions

[ocr errors]

1 Also we are assured by Marius Victorinus (Keil, G.L. VI. 23), if I understand him rightly,

that nechoc and necillud were hyphened words.

F

or conflicts, extending as far as the fourth foot, very rarely the fifth. Terence's trimeter likes best to have it in the fifth :

quod mihi uidere praeter aetatem tuam

facere et praeterquam res te adhortatur tua

quod in opere faciundo operae consumis tuae,

which weights the verse and stays it from running away. So also do endings of the type quicquam fuit, nemo siet, etc. But if Terence had given his actor an ending to pronounce, such as Prudentius could use six centuries later,

Deum perennem findit in dŭōs děōs,

that native bias inherent in the Latin language until after his day, which we call 'Iambic Law,' would have been too strong for the actor, and forced him to say dúos deos. So the reason which proscribes an ending like duos deos may be expressed in this formula: inversion of accent on an iambic word is not admitted in the fifth foot. The tendency of the language is to turn that duos into duos. But give an actor licere speras facere me uiuo patre,

and he will allow full value to the intensity of ui- and still do justice to the movement of the rhythm emphasizing -uo. The inversion of accent is a means of slowing the rhythm just because it tends to equalize the faible with the forte in a particular foot. When the foot is an iambus-suppose the verse to be

licere speras facere me bono patre

the native tendency of the language inclines him, in a manner compels him, to say bono patre, in which case the verse is ruined. Well, this tendency allows itself to be overcome in the sixth foot by the pause after the completion of the verse; but in the first foot what happens? Takes such a verse as

dies noctesque me ames, me desideres :

a certain discipline is exercised to prevent the actor from saying dies, for such would be the natural pronunciation produced by initial intensity. But verse is a compromise between art and nature; there must be give and take. If the poet requires the actor to do justice to the long syllable and pronounce the theoretically correct iambus dies, there is one necessary stipulation: the literary, theoretical, value can be maintained in the first foot, provided the second foot shall not also consist of a single iambic word unelided. That is to say, the effort of voice-management must not be exacted twice running; that would be more than the tongue could bear, and to the hearers also the effect would be too ' quaint and mouthy.'

But this rule, which implies the key to the other, has-so far as I know-not been observed and detached. It has no counterpart in Menander's metric-e.g. the first hundred lines of Epitrepontes offer ὅπως ἔχει—ποεῖς μίαν—ἐὰν λαλῇς. But there are in Terence no exceptions to it but such as are exactly analogous to the treatment of the di-iambus in the fifth and sixth feet-viz. both feet may be iambs if they are formed by

(1) A single di-iambic word: potissimum (Andr. 454), remiserim (Phorm. 929).

(2) A group, whether with an enclitic: bonan fide (Haut. 761), mălo quidem-me (Haut. 135); or without: heri minas-uiginti (Eun. 169), minás-decem (Ad. 242), uirúmbonum, le bonhomme' (Eun. 918) (cf. ill'-bónus-uir, Phorm. 638, Ad. 476), bonam-bonisprognatam (Phorm. 115).

(3) An elision: tuam in fidem (Hec. 109),1 decem ob minas (Phorm. 662), habet bonorum exemplum (Haut. 20).

All others conform. Did I say all? No; one was lame,' though it was not Terence that lamed it, but his editors. We have in Phorm. 958:

1 Contrast bonă fide in Laberius, Ribb.,3 p. 356.

uides peccatum tuom esse elatum foras (sic codd. omnes).

Thinking it hardly conceivable that tuom should be in hiatus, Erasmus conjectured,

uides tuom peccatum esse elatum foras,

and Fleckeisen, Dziatzko-Hauler, Tyrrell and Co., all say ditto. But it will not scan. It looked simple, and it violated no express rule; but that ear of Bentley's somehow knew that it would not do:1 he wrote,

uides peccatum tuom hoc esse elatum foras.

As usual, once you begin to think, it is difficult to get past Bentley's reading, unless one should prefer:

uides tuom elatum esse peccatum foras.

Evidently this observation about the initial di-iambus sets in a new light the regulation about the final di-iambus. It is not likely that there are two different raisons d'être : but we shall see that the account usually given why such an ending as bono patre was proscribed is quite unfit to explain why such a beginning should be proscribed. The audience (or was it the actor?), on hearing an iamb bonō, concluded,' we are told, 'that the verse was finished, and experienced a disagreeable shock on hearing yet another iamb.' Apparet varus. An iamb was such an event in the mob of resolved and substituted feet! The theory had its humorous value; but as an explanation of facts it will not serve-at least, I do not see how it is applicable to the same phenomenon occurring at the other end of the verse: which condemns it to Ockham's razor.2 But there is a cause adequate to account for both these phenomena as well as for many others in Latin dramatic verse-viz. the inability (or, at least, the great unreadiness) of the Latin speaking-organs to pronounce -, a disyllable with the first short and the second long. Their ear instinctively favoured the genus par 'for speaking verse'; in the genera duplex and sescuplex they only had occasionally tours de force, such as a Plautine canticum or a Catullus' Attis, the pure iambics of Catullus and Horace.

NOTE. The same practice is found in Plautus. I have only noticed the following exceptions:

In Plautus (Lindsay's text), not counting instances like Poen. 1332 bonúmuirum, le bonhomme'; Poen. 1349, Rud. 783 meaé-quidem; Trin. 541 oues scabraé-sunt, which readily explain themselves to anybody familiar with Lindsay's groups, there remain only:

1 Ramain was not satisfied either; but I agree with Hauler in finding his suggestion rhythmically undesirable. Ramain wrote: 'uides tuom esse elatum peccatum foras.'

2 When this paper was drafted I had not yet had the benefit of reading Professor Lindsay's Early Latin Verse. In this work (p. 271) he suggests that the canon of the final di-iambus has an accentual raison d'être; Marx (quoted in his footnote) says that the reason why an ending such as negat uirum was forbidden is still unknown. It is curious that even Catullus' pure iambics (IV. and XXIX.) show only two exceptions: initial opus foret (IV. 5) and potest pati (XXIX. 1). Horace in the Epodes has iamb + iamb initial twice (VI. 11 and XVII. 19), and final four times (I. 16, V. 7, IX. 33, XVI. 66). The canon obtains in the tragic senarii of Seneca absolutely in respect of the last dipody; there is no example in any of the plays, Octauia

included, of an iambic word forming the fifth
foot. In respect of the first dipody the statistic
is as follows:
Oedipus
Octavia}

none.

Herc. Furens 359 noui parat.
Troades 207 uelis licet.

Phoenissae 104 (?) meae penes-me est, 134 aui

gener, 201 malis tuis, 337 adhuc iuuet. Medea 228 precor breuem, 539 potest fugam, 897 amas adhuc, 911 iuuat, iuuat. Phaedra 637 libet loqui, 709 (?) datus tuis est. Agamemnon 991 inops, egens (? egena). Thyestes 263 tonat dies, 442 pater, potes, 454

malan bonae, 526 pares meis (a variant gives ' quales mei sunt'), 720 (?) stetit sui

securus.

Herc. Oetaeus 911 placet scelus, 1333 adhuc malis, 1830 erunt satis.

Only a score of examples in the ten plays.

« السابقةمتابعة »