No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In this paper it is proposed to be argued that the tendency in Latin known as the ‘Iambic Law’ is actuated by one cause, and one only—viz., the intensity of the prior syllable of the two. ‘Intensity’ means higher tone and increased force of utterance (plus sonat, Keil, 4, 426; acuto accentu elatum, as Charisius (K. I, p. 227) says of ut exclamatory). It is of three kinds:
(1) Initial—proper to the first syllable of a disyllabic, tetrasyllabic, or pentesyllabic word of a sentence or (as Bentley first noted) of a verse.
(2) Appropriate to the sense of interrogatives (which therefore must normally stand first) and other words of natural emphasis, such as ego, or the expletives pol, malum, or imperatives, or words like at and sed, before which there is a pause in Latin.
(3) Attaching to particular words in a particular context because of the meaning of the sentence (cf. Donat. ad Phorm. 341, acuenda uox in eo quod ait, ‘tibi’).
page 67 note 1 Expletives:
Andr. 939 ne ῐstam multimodis tuam inueniri gaudeo.
Haut. 866 desponsam quoque esse dicito. Men. Em ῐstoc uolueram.
Hec. 347 hem ῐstoc uerbo animus mihi redit et cura ex corde excessit.
Phorm. 723 datum esse dotis. De. Quid tua malum ῐd refert?…
Haut. 730 faciet nisi caueo. Ba. Dormiunt. ego pol ῐstos commouebo.
Hec. 772 nec pol ῐstae metuont deos … (in Hec. 747 Dziatzko's nec pol ῐsta is unmetrical).
Eho not merely shortens a subjoined ᾰn in an non, but even gives—
Andr. 781 eam uxorem ducet. Mys. Eho ŏbsecro, an non ciuis est?
Andr. 489 uel hŏc quis non credat…
Phorm. 143… uel ŏccidito (unless you prefer to call this uel an imperative still). Cf. uel hἰc qui me aperte effrenata impudentia Accius (Ribb., p. 177).
page 67 note 2 Imperatives:
Hec. 494 iube ῐllam redire…
Haut. 332 age, age, cedo ῐstuc tuom consilium.
Eun. 151 sine ῐillum priores partes.
Phrom. 993 qui hercle ubi sit nescit. Ch. caue ῐsti quicquam creduas.
Phrom. 784 agedum, ut soles, Nausistrata, fac ῐlla ut placetur nobis.
Eun. 189 tu, Parmeno, huc fac ῐlli adducantur.
Eun. 362 fac ŭt potiar.
As has been pointed out before, ‘dominant’ words have varying degrees of dominance: quis has the highest; a mere imperative has not force enough to reduce hoc in terence:
Eun. 595 cape hōc flabellum (it would be rash to substitute cape uentilabrum from Lex. Maii).
Haut. 831 cape hōc argentum ac defer … Or even in Plautus:
Pseud. 20 cape hᾱs tabellas…
page 69 note 1 To the Terentian instances, detailed in previous articles, it may be added that even in the tragic verse of Pacuvius we find:
<ablit> ubi ῐllic est? me miseram! Quonam clam se eliminet (Ribb.,3 p. 105); and Accius:
Sed quis hῐc est qui matutinum … (ib., p. 175).
Quid ĕst cur componere ausis mihi te aut me tibi' (ib., p. 179).
Pacuvius has also:
Possum ego ĭstam capite cladem auerruncassere (ib., 122).
and Accius:
Sed ŭt cuique (ib., p. 196). Sed implies a pause before it, for it was correct to punctuate before sed (Diomed. ap, Keil I., p. 437).
page 69 note 2 In Phrom. 178 is ĕst ipsus or i'st ipsus, would do; but in Andr. 906 certe is ĕst, before a full-stop and a chane of speaker, is an impossibility. Read certe i'st; and likewise in Ad. 439 i'st hercle, which accounts for the reading of A.
page 69 note 3 The Phrase is colloquial: it happens to be preserved in a fragment of early prose: ‘eamus ad ipsam’: atque ipsa commode (commodum?) de parte superiore descendebat (Sisenna Milesiar, XIII. ap. Charisium, Keil, I., p. 196).
page 70 note 1 By the way, the variant EXPERIRE in A1 and D perhaps indicates an original EXPERIBERE, as in Haut. 824, ipsa-re experibere; though the No-proceleusmatics-in-the-Fifth-Foot party will not like it.
page 71 note 1 Cf. (Ribbeck3, Frag. Com., p. II) Naevius' Nec ădmodum a pueris abscessit néc ădmodum adulescentulust.
page 72 note 1 Not to be paralleled by Haut. 978, Sy. abiit, uah, rogasse uellem.… Cl. Quid?
Sy, Ŭnde mihi peterem cibum, which is accounted for by the extreme rapidity of Clitipho's interjection hardly interrupting Syrus' sentence.
page 72 note 2 Doubtless nothing was heard but quid in.
page 73 note 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.
page 74 note 1 Contrast bonă fide in Laberius, Ribb.,3 p. 356.
page 75 note 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.’
page 75 note 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. II and XVII. 19), and 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:
Herc. Furens 359 noui parat.
Troades 207 uelis licet.
Phoenissae 104 (?) meae pense-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 suisecurus.
Herc. Oetaeus 911 placet scelus, 1333 adhuc malis, 1830 erunt satis.
Only a score of examples in the ten plays.
page 77 note 1 See the admirable little book by Macdonagh, J. (†1916), Thomas campion and the Art of English poetry, Dublin, 1912Google Scholar.
page 78 note 1 Lemaire's index, pending the publication of Mr. McGlynn's promised Lexicon to Terence.
page 78 note 2 So A.
page 78 note 3 So DG; the MSS vary greatly.
page 78 note 4 Probably we should read: nĕ égo homŏ fórtunatus: déamo te, Syre.
page 78 note 5 Afranius, has homŏ (Ribb.,3 p. 254)Google Scholar.
page 79 note 1 Pacuvius, has rogŏ, Ribb.,3 p. 129Google Scholar.
page 79 note 2 But if we may trust Frag. Com. (Ribb.,3 p. 5) Ennius actually did begin an iambic line with quis ĕst qui foribus nostris.
page 79 note 3 Cf. Ad. 332 qui síne-hăc iurabat … Eun. 190 in hŏ biduom.
page 80 note 1 Of the following list it will be noted how many attest that weakness in the final -t of the third person, which the pre-literary Umbrian(e.g. Ernout, , Recueil, p. 41)Google Scholar and the eventual Italian would lead us to suppose. Cf. Lindsay, , L.L., p. 528Google Scholar.
page 80 note 2 I do not add Eun. 511,
roget quis ‘Quid rei tibi cum ilia?’ ne noram quidem
believing the Calliopian reading, ‘roget quis “Quid tibi cum ea?”’
page 82 note 1 I see no cause that should abridge fidĕm here except the verse stresses on deúm and fcinus, which means that it is an unskilful verse—or corruptly reported. Perhaps we should add one to the four recognized troch. quaternarii of Terence (And. 246, Phorm. 183, Ad. 158, 616) and read,
Proh deum <atque hominum fide> as in And. 246, making a senarius of <O> facinus foedum! O infelicem adulescentulum!
In the example from Phormio the quaternarius tands between two iambic lines.
page 82 note 2 Cf. Caecilius' capt-consilium.
page 82 note 3 Comparing this with Phorm. 949, ‘inepti uestra puerili sententia,’ the reading
itidem illae mulieres sunt ferme puerili sententia (D1).
may commend itself; but, on the other hand, Pacuvius' (Ribb., p. 86) breuĭ capite, ceruice anguina, aspectu truci, looks as if the ablative phrase representing a (Greek) compound adjective was pronounced as a group-word.
page 82 note 4 I.e., eliminating enclitics (Pers. 733, Ps. 545, 770), groups (Mil. 594, Most. 639), the word ehem, which is a mere screatus indefinitely producible, and a dabō (Ps. 118) caused by a full-stop following.