« PreviousContinue »
Other kinds of rhetorical balance are illustrated by the following passages:
A 404-405, N 301-302, 742–743, T 365-366, 464-466, X 485486, V 321, 323, 326, 621-623, Y II-12 (cf. Theoc. i, 100-101), d 4, 20.
These are some of the verses which may be cited to show that the bucolic poet has no claim to originality when he uses the pause at the end of the fourth foot to produce a rhetorical effect. Thus from this standpoint also, the epithet .bucolic' has no real justification.
Two facts already noticed have an important bearing on the theory of the origin of the hexameter. Metricians have stated that the hexameter of the bucolic poets is composed according to its origin, not like the heroic hexameter, of two tripodies, but of a tetrapody and a dipody (Rossbach, Theorie der musischen Künste, 3d ed. III, 2, p. 51; Gleditsch, in von Müller's Handbuch, II, 3, p. 121). The evidence from the poems themselves which is given in support of this theory is, first, the predominance of the pause at the end of the fourth foot in the bucolic poems (Rossbach, 1.c.), and, second, the frequent use of anaphora after the pause (Gleditsch, l.c.). But if the Homeric poet sometimes uses this diaeresis more frequently than does Theocritus, and employs anaphora after it in a similar way, the same argument applies to a considerable percentage of the verses of the Iliad and Odyssey. Either these Homeric verses are derived from the union of a tetrapody with a dipody, or else the bucolic hexameter in respect to origin is the same as Homer's verse.
It remains to examine the use, aside from that already considered, which the Homeric poet makes of this pause. We can do this most readily, perhaps, by comparing the bucolic diaeresis with the main pause of the verse. The similarity between the caesura of the third foot and the pause at the end of the verse scholars have pointed out from various standpoints. Hiatus and the syllaba anceps are allowed before this caesura in the same way as at the close of the verse, but not to the same extent. Monosyllables which cannot stand at the beginning of the verse are not found immediately after the pause, and, likewise, monosyllables which are not found at the end of the verse do not immediately precede the pause (La Roche, Wiener Studien, XVIII (1896), p. 3). Professor Seymour has shown (Harvard Studies, III (1892), pp. 91128) that there is a strong tendency in the Homeric poems to make the thought complete with the end of the verse, and that to a considerable degree this is true of the pause in the third foot. The poet treated the verse as a thought-unit as well as a metrical unit, and he regarded the half-verse as a thought-unit also, although to a less extent. The first halfverse states the essential facts of the narrative; the second half merely adds picturesque details and is often parenthetical. The second half-verse oftentimes may be omitted for successive verses without disturbing the narrative. Finally, there are a very large number of tags suited to follow the caesura of the third foot (Transactions Am. Phil. Assoc. XVI (1885), pp. 30–40).
Let us now test the pause at the end of the fourth foot by each of these six principles : (1) hiatus, (2) syllaba anceps, (3) position of certain word-forms, (4) tendency of the pause to separate the essential part of the narrative from the picturesque and often purely parenthetical, (5) possibility of omitting the feet which follow the pause for successive verses without disturbing the narrative, and (6) the existence of numerous verse-tags which are suited to follow the pause.
It has already been established that in regard to the first three the pause at the end of the fourth foot is, in kind, like that in the third foot, just as the latter caesura in the effect produced resembles the end of the verse, although less extensively. (For hiatus, see van Leeuwen, Enchiridion, p. 79; for syllaba anceps, Christ, Metrik, p. 195; for position of certain word-forms, La Roche, 1.c., and Zeitschrift für die öster. Gym. XLVI (1895), p. 588.) It is the purpose of this part of my paper to show that in respect to the last three principles, that is, in the influence of the pause on the connection of thought, the bucolic diaeresis has a force similar in kind to that of the caesura of the third foot.
1. The first four feet of the verse carry the burden of the narrative; the last two feet add unessential but picturesque details, or repeat in slightly different form an idea which has already been expressed, the clausula being often entirely parenthetical. The material at command is so abundant nearly 3000 verses - that only the briefest indication can be given, together with a few examples, of the ways in which this principle is illustrated.
For convenience I have divided the material into five groups, basing the division on the form of the clausula.
GROUP A. The last two feet of the verse consist of a word or brief clause joined to the preceding four feet by a coördinate conjunction which is contained in the clausula. This is the largest group and consists of more than 1000 verses. The following are taken almost at random:
Δ 26 πώς έθέλεις άλιον Θείναι πόνον | ήδ' ατέλεστον,
In these verses it is clear that the clausula is not essential to the narrative. It merely repeats a previously expressed thought in a different form. Take for example A 62-64:
λ' άγε δή τινα μάντιν έρείομεν η ιερήα
Here both the clausula of vs. 62 and the whole of vs. 63 are in a way parenthetical. As far as the burden of the narrative is concerned the clause beginning ός κ' είπoι (vs. 64) might as well have followed immediately after έρείομεν, ε.. :
αλλ' άγε δή τινα μάντιν έρείομεν, ός τε κε φαίη
To show in another way that the poet could dispense with these brief clauses when the narrative demanded it, the following pairs of verses may be cited :
Γ 67 νύν αύτ', είμ' εθέλεις πολεμίζειν | δε μάχεσθαι, and
I 263 όσσα του εν κλισίησιν υπέσχετο | δωρ' Αγαμέμνων, GROUP B. The clausula consists of an appositional phrase. To this group belong the familiar tags, ποιμένα λαών, ισόθεος φώς, δια θεάων, and many others. These are too well-known to require further comment. The verses number about 300.
GROUP C. The last two feet contain a brief simile introduced by ήύτε, ίσος (ίσα, ίση, ισον), ώς (postpositive), - 53 verses, e.g.:
A 359 καρπαλίμως δ' ανέδυ πολίης αλός | ήύτ’ ομίχλη,
ζ 309 τω ό γε οινοποτάζει εφήμενος | αθάνατος ως. It may be remarked here that núte introducing a comparison is found more frequently (22 times) immediately after the bucolic diaeresis than in all other positions in the verse together (15 times). The comparison is sometimes expanded in the following verses, e.g., Δ 243-245, φ 48.
GROUP D. A participle or participial phrase fills out the verse after the bucolic diaeresis, adding some unessential but picturesque detail. . It is often parenthetical. This is a large class, including more than 500 verses.
Β 167 βη δε κατ' Ούλύμποιο καρήνων | αίξασα,
παντοίοισι δόλοισι, μόγις δ' ετέλεσσε Κρονίων. The translation of Butcher and Lang: "For nine whole years we were busy about them, devising their ruin with all manner of craft,” gives the thought of the poet but not his manner of telling the story. This would be, perhaps, as follows: "For nine years we were devising their ruin, busily, with all manner of craft, and scarce did the son of Kronos bring it to pass." The last two feet of verse 118 and the first half-verse of 119 are alike added thoughts. The first amplifies the bare statement of the fact, and, while it suggests mavrololoi dolor, it is not essential and might have been omitted.
X 412 λαοί μέν ρα γέροντα μόγις έχον | ασχαλόωντα
εξελθείν μεμαώτα πυλάων Δαρδανιάων. . For the simple statement of fact neither áoxalówvta nor πυλάων Δαρδανιάων are essential. .
P 408 πολλάκι γαρ τό γε μητρός έπεύθετο | νόσφιν ακούων, , Ameis-Hentze take untpós with ảkoúwv. But it is simpler to construe it with επεύθετο and regard νόσφιν ακούων as parenthetical. For this use of the genitive of the person from whom the information comes, with tuvo dvoual, cf. K 536-537:
μηδέ έαν νεκύων άμενηνά κάρονα
αίματος ασσον μεν, πρίν Τειρεσία ο πυθέσθαι. “ until Teiresias tells thee."
Ω 82 έρχεται ωμηστησιν επ' ιχθύσι | κηρα φέρουσα. . The Ameis-Hentze edition (followed by Professor Clapp) says this is the only occurrence of pépovoa with emri and the dative, the simple dative being the usual construction. The order of words, however, would make it easier to construe επ' ιχθύσι with έρχεται, and to regard the last two feet of the verse as parenthetical. For the use of émi with the dative after a verb of motion, cf. E 327:
νηυσιν έπι γλαφυρήσιν έλαυνέμεν. . The phrase kîpa þépovo a is not found parenthetically elsewhere in the Homeric poems, but we find a collocation of