💾 Archived View for runjimmyrunrunyoufuckerrun.com › schol › thesis › 1.1_METRE captured on 2021-12-17 at 13:26:06.

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

.p
The \f8metre\f6 of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 has received some devoted attention.\c
.f "Baldwin (1911) 55–63; Guido (1976) 293–332; Yeh (2007) 193–385."
The consensus seems to be that Eumolpus' prosody is competent and not more.
As Baldwin puts it, his verses ``are correct and vigorous
but often monotonous and unmusical, and create an impression
of having been hammered out with careful regard to the fundamental rules,
but without much feeling for subtler effects or perception of the
variety of treatment which might be achieved within them.''\|\c
.f "Baldwin (1911) 56."
Indeed, as far as correctness is concerned there is only one verse
which deviates from the basic rules, the fifth-foot-spondaic v. 279:
.bl

.ft 7
.nr A \w'alt'
.nr B \w'alta p'
.nr C \w'alta pet'
.nr D \w'alta petit gr'
.nr E \w'alta petit grad'
.nr F \w'alta petit gradie'
.nr G \w'alta petit gradiens i'
.nr H \w'alta petit gradiens iug'
.nr I \w'alta petit gradiens iuga n'
.nr J \w'alta petit gradiens iuga nob'
.nr K \w'alta petit gradiens iuga nobil'
.nr L \w'alta petit gradiens iuga nobilis '
.nr M \w'alta petit gradiens iuga nobilis App'
.nr N \w'alta petit gradiens iuga nobilis Appenn'
.nr O \w'alta petit gradiens iuga nobilis Appennin'
.ps 8
—\h'|\nAu'∪\h'|\nBu'∪/\h'|\nCu'—\h'|\nDu'∪\h'|\nEu'∪/—\h'|\nGu'∪\h'|\nHu'∪/\h'|\nIu'—\h'|\nJu'∪\h'|\nKu'∪/\h'|\nLu'—\h'|\nMu'—/\h'|\nNu'—\h'|\nOu'—
.ps 12
.sp -0.5
\f7alta petit gradiens iuga nobilis Appennini\f6

.ck
If there is an effect being aimed at here it may be of
a pulling up short of the four dactyls that race before,
corresponding with Discordia's sped arrival at the summit of her vantage point,
though it is noted that the occurrence of the place name \f7Appenninus\f6
at the end of the hexameter is common enough among other poets.\c
.f "Baldwin (1911) 60, n. 1; Guido (1976) 308, n. 114; Yeh (2007) 269."
It also seems fitting that the only metrical discordance in the poem
occurs in a description of the goddess of discord herself.
Baldwin's criticism seems to be that by sticking strictly to the rules
of hexameter composition Eumolpus' art suffers for want of variety,
but his consistency does at least set him apart from the other characters
in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 who speak in verse, as a real poet.
.p
Probably the best comparison on this point is with Trimalchio.
Besides his ``quotation'' of Publilius Syrus (55.6),
Trimalchio comes up with two short compositions (34.10, 55.3),
each usually presented as two hexameters followed by a pentameter.
Edmunds notes that though this verse form has a history in epitaphs
(suitably morbid, in keeping with the rest of the \f7Cena\f6)
it is still a ``sub-literary'' form.\c
.f "Edmunds (2009) 88."
Textual problems confuse the matter, though (see at 55.3.1–2), so that Walsh reads
all three of the verses in the second composition as pentameters.\c
.f "Walsh (1970) 128."
Yeh also recognizes only the first two hexameters,
and proposes both compositions be taken together as the same poem,
resulting in a bizarre mixture of two hexameters and four pentameters.\c
.f "Yeh (2007) 96–8."
Each of these three readings draws a contrast with Eumolpus
in point of \f7ars metrica\f6.
Under Edmunds' reading Trimalchio can quote another poet's senarii
but when it comes to his own composition seems restricted
to a single, rather lowly metre.
Eumolpus by contrast can write his own senarii
and demonstrates an ability
.ne 12
in several metres.\c
.f "Hexameter in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 and at 83.10, \
senarii in the \f7Troiae Halosis\f6 (89), \
hendecasyllabics at 93.2 and 109.10, and elegiacs at 109.9."
Under Walsh's reading Trimalchio succumbs to the novice versifier's fault
of composing hexameters which are short one foot.\c
.f "``A common experience in the early stages,'' Walsh (1970) 128 n. 1."
This is a neat explanation, clearing up the textual difficulties
and appealing to the intuition that Trimalchio is only a pretender to literary ability.
Trimalchio presents verses which are embarrassingly unmetrical;
Eumolpus' contrasting fidelity to metrical rules characterizes the one as a fraud,
the other as the genuine article.
The contrast is starker when it is considered
that both poems are part of Trimalchio's stage-managed performance:
if the poems had been composed before the dinner
then their failings cannot even be attributed to hasty improvisation.\c
.f "Courtney (2001) 85, 99 n. 39; Courtney sees Trimalchio's second composition \
as ``a parody of the mini-genre of epigrams on non-fatal accidents,'' p. 99, \
and since the accident was probably staged, therefore pre-composed."
Eumolpus, on the other hand, presents perfect verses
both \f7ex tempore\f6 and already prepared.
Finally, under Yeh's reading Trimalchio attempts
a virtuosic combination of metres; but the result is very uneven,
with two verses in the first metre and four in the second, and Trimalchio
seems to forget that pentameters do not usually occur consecutively.
This is to be compared with Eumolpus' two metrical takes on baldness (109.9, 10),
where the treatments are nearly symmetrical,
with six verses in the first metre and seven in the second,
and where each of the metres is a recognized form,
the first elegiac couplets and the second hendecasyllabics.
It seems that whatever way Trimalchio's offerings are read
his versification is questionable and so his characterization not that of a real poet.
If it is Petronius' aim to characterize Eumolpus also as a bad poet
then he goes about it in this case in a different way,
for Eumolpus' correctness in metrical matters on the contrary signals
at least some poetic proficiency.
.p
So much for the basics of versification,
but what of the rhythm of Eumolpus' prosody?
It has been suggested that ``in keeping with the characterization
of the conservative theorist of mediocre talent,
the poem handles the theme of the civil war in a traditionalist manner,
but in style echoes the stridency and monotonous versification
of the poet whom Eumolpus is condemning.''\|\c
.f "Walsh (1970) 50, a repetition of the thought at Walsh (1968) 210–211."
The theory is that Petronius has his poet adhere to his own conservative precepts
in terms of treatment and divine machinery,
but that in terms of mannerisms and metre
he has him betray his tendency toward the practices of Lucan and poets like him.
The purpose of this ironical characterization is either to parody Lucan
or discredit Eumolpus' theorizing.
Indeed it is true that Eumolpus, like Lucan, is fond of a pause
in the third- or fourth-foot (or, penthemimeral or hepthemimeral) caesura,
and that the overuse of this effect makes for a quite monotonous rhythm.\c
.f "Baldwin (1911) 56; Walsh (1968) 211."
But Eumolpus is also fond of a pause at the bucolic diaeresis, a Vergilian practice.\c
.f "Baldwin (1911) 57; Sullivan (1968) 179."
In fact Sullivan lists several aspects of the versification of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6
in which Eumolpus is closer to the practice of Vergil than that of Lucan, including
frequent use of elision (and in the same place in the line as Vergil),
similar repeat line-endings to Vergil,
and the use of spondaic words
at the beginnings of lines.\c
.f "Sullivan (1968) 178–9."
Indeed, the use of elision in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 is markedly increased
in comparison to its use in Eumolpus' other poems,
so that, at least in one respect, it may even be that the poet is striving
for a Vergilian effect in his versification \f7in this poem specifically\f6.
.p
These findings are confirmed by the statistical work of Duckworth,
who finds many other differences
between the versification of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 and that of the \f7Pharsalia\f6.\c
.f "Duckworth (1969) 102–3."
Lucan and Eumolpus show a different preference for verse patterns,
and Eumolpus is unique among all poets
in his frequent use of the line which is an alternation
of spondees and dactyls, such as at v. 61:
.bl

.ft 7
.nr A \w'tr'
.nr B \w'tres t'
.nr C \w'tres tul'
.nr D \w'tres tuler'
.nr E \w'tres tulerat F'
.nr F \w'tres tulerat Fort'
.nr G \w'tres tulerat Fortun'
.nr H \w'tres tulerat Fortuna d'
.nr I \w'tres tulerat Fortuna duc'
.nr J \w'tres tulerat Fortuna duces, qu'
.nr K \w'tres tulerat Fortuna duces, quos '
.nr L \w'tres tulerat Fortuna duces, quos obr'
.nr M \w'tres tulerat Fortuna duces, quos obru'
.nr N \w'tres tulerat Fortuna duces, quos obruit '
.nr O \w'tres tulerat Fortuna duces, quos obruit omn'
.ps 8
\h'|\nAu'—\h'|\nBu'∪\h'|\nCu'∪/\h'|\nDu'—\h'|\nEu'—/\h'|\nFu'—\h'|\nGu'∪\h'|\nHu'∪/\h'|\nIu'—\h'|\nJu'—/\h'|\nKu'—\h'|\nLu'∪\h'|\nMu'∪/\h'|\nNu'—\h'|\nOu'—
.ps 12
.sp -0.5
\f7tres tulerat Fortuna duces, quos obruit omnes\f6
.\"\f7tr\o'e¯'s t\o'u¨'l\o'e¨'r\o'a¯'t F\o'o¯'rt\o'u¯'n\o'a¯'
.\"d\o'u¯'c\o'e¯'s qu\o'o¯'s \o'o¯'br\o'u¯'\o'i¯'t \o'o¯'mn\o'e¯'s\f6

.ck
Contrary to Baldwin's statement that Eumolpus' rhythm lacks variety,\c
.f "Baldwin (1911) 57."
Duckworth finds a high degree of variation
in the verse patterning of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6.
Finally, a preference for slow, spondaic lines
is noted by several commentators alike.\c
.f "Baldwin (1991) 57–9; Sullivan (1968) 179; Duckworth (1969) 103; \
Yeh (2007) 224."
Duckworth concludes: ``in some respects [Eumolpus'] procedure is an improvement
[on Lucan] (less concentration on the same patterns, and more spondees),
in others (high homodyne percentage and low percentage of change
in fourth-foot texture) it is definitely inferior.''\|\c
.f "Duckworth (1969) 103."
Rather than being ``dominated by the stylistic vices
.ne 12
of the man whom he condemns,'' then,\c
.f "Walsh (1968) 210."
Eumolpus strives to overcome those vices.
He does not fully succeed, for there are indeed places where the rhythm is repetitive,
and he does not attain the level of his model Vergil's versification,
but neither does he altogether fail.