« ElőzőTovább »
At the close of the first or second verse,
ii. No monosyllabic word, being emphatic, or in close syntax with what follows, is admitted;
iii. nor is any monosyllable, unless ending in, and unemphatic, elided.
iv. In that part of the verse where the movement is Trochaic, no hiatus of a long vowel or diphthong appears, either as short extra ictum, or as long cum ictu.
v. But neither in the Dactylic parts of the verse, where analogy at least might justify it, is a long vowel or diphthong, in hiatu, allowed to form a short syllable.
Even Euripides does this:
Medea, 423. τὰν ἐμὰν ὑμνοῦσαι ἀπιστοσύναν.
At any rate, the Adonic verse, as being identical with the dactyl and spondee of the Anapestic system so called, may surely claim the same hiatus,
μοῦσα καὶ ἡμῖν.
and many such forms do occur in the Musa Cantabrigienses. vi. No elision of a long vowel appears at all; and even the short are rarely elided.
In v. 29. of the Ode, φιλτάτα 'κειτ ̓ ἐν λοχίαις ἀνάγκαις, ἔκειτο suffers by a legitimate apheresis; but such an apostrophe it would be at least safer to avoid.
vii. No short vowel ad finem vocis presumes to form a short syllable, when followed by %, &, v, or by ßλ, yv, dμ, μv, &c.
viii. But neither is any short vowel, ad finem vocis, quamvis cum ictu, before the letter p, or before ×λ, πp, lv, ßp, &c. allowed to constitute a long syllable, even after the dactyl.
Yet we may quote from Euripides:-
Phaniss. 1505. στολίδα κροκόεσσαν ἀνεῖσα τρυφᾶς.
and Hippolyt. 757. ἔπτατο κλεινὰς Αθήνας.
Of Pindar's prosody, the first Olympian Ode presents these instances, vv. 58, 9. σὲ δ', ἀντί | α προτέρων φθέγξομαι.
In settling the dialect, or forms and flexions of Greek words, which the modern Sapphic Ode may most properly exhibit, we have to encounter much diversity of practice, and find very little to guide us in any principles hitherto laid down. Mr. Hall, like most of his predecessors, oscillates betwixt the Eolic of Sappho and the late Doric of Theocritus---a strange mixture of ages, as can well be imagined.
Wherever some determinate rule is wanting, inconsistency and discord must naturally follow. And it is not therefore at present imputed as any fault to Mr. H. that in the course of twenty-six stanzas, many points of etymology and accent occur, which cannot be reduced to any one system and which can just as little be reconciled to each other.
Let us once more' attempt to decide this question in a practical way and to lay down a clear and consistent line for the guidance of young scholars in writing the Greek Sapphic stanza,
1. Grant, that the text of SAPPHO's few reliques has received from the critical acumen and depth of Mr. Blomfield its most elaborate and perhaps final castigation. Yet surely, even now, no modest man would undertake, for the labor of a life-time, to write, on a new subject, six and twenty stanzas, exactly and purely after the manner of Sappho! One may defy any man living to do it and to demonstrate it rightly done. The thing is impossible: and it palpably is so, from the want of materials for imitation in the archetype.
2. If a distinct and complete model then be required, on which a Greek ode in the Æolic dialect may be attempted with any chance of success; the only Æolian poet yet extant presents his lyric treasures, in sufficient abundance and variety, for the purpose.
PINDAR, in the most brilliant age of Greece, enjoyed unexampled celebrity; marked indeed with a dialectic character of his own, yet not provincial and rude, but elegant at once and popular---from Thebes to Athens, and from Syracuse to Cyrene.
Vid. C. J. ix. 120-124. xiii. 163-166.
3. But why should not a third Sect arise, discarding the study of Pindar as arduous or unnecessary, and the model of Sappho as quite impracticable? A general pattern might easily be found in the collective manner and matter of the Choral odes of the three Greek Tragedians. Nothing of the kind perhaps has yet been attempted or avowed: though in the simplicity of its style and dialect (from the slight use of a few Doric forms which the Tragics allow) such a composition could hardly fail of succeeding. At any rate, that plan would effectually banish the Chaos of dialect and style, which now so disagreeably prevails. All would then be of a piece; and we should not be offended by Pindar conflicting with Theocritus, or by Sappho jostling with Menander, in the very same verse.
Here, it may be said, are two rules proposed, clear enough, each of them, and consistent, to be sure; but much too strict and narrow for the young scholar to observe, who in School or in College is called upon to write the Greek Sapphic stanza.
Some indulgence may seem fairly due to so candid a plea: and he who makes the plea honestly, will not be condemned, if in an exercise where the muse of Pindar predominates, he harmoniously introduce the diction of the Tragic ode, or with the matter and manner of the Tragic ode consistently unite the style and the dialect of Pindar.
Only, at all events, in this advanced and advancing period of Greek literature, let the Prolusiones Academica have a steady bearing to some age, to some character, to some plan. The great, the only rational object, proposed in these prizes of our University, is to encourage the cultivation of classical taste along with exactness of critical knowledge. And how far that object can be effected by a long Poem which is allowed to blend in one mass almost any thing and every thing from Theocritus to Homer; it must be left to older and higher Heads to determine. J. T.
25 Nov. 1818. R. S. Y.
P.S. To show the awkward appearance arising from the want or the neglect of some determinate rule, a few instances by way of illustration shall be given from the Greek ode for the present year. C. J. u. s.
ποκα. This form of the word is from Theocritus. In Sappho, it is Tora: in Pindar, TOTE.
v. 6. xɛoîσα..on all accounts, ought to be xéσx. v. 9. Tv is unknown to all three.
S. has σοι: Τ. τιν and τοι : Ρ. TIV.
v. 13. ὁτεῦ, as also τευ. v. 15. τευ,
Ionic, in Homer and Herodotus.
and 19. T.. tui. in Theocritus only, and there marked as suspicious by Gaisford.
vv. 27, 41. Tu, te. Sat rustice, apud ipsum Theocritum.
S. has Te; P. has σe, instead.
vv. 35, 61. xaμsions, texeúσns, ought, according to Theocritus and Pindar, to be καμοίσας, τεκοίσας.
vv. 69, 102. infra, lavoîoa, recte.
v. 38. ypapéws, an Attic form, and pro iambo.
v. 43. xolos, Ionic, in Herodotus.
vv. 46, 67. iллάτшν, in Sapphо only;
why in v. 88. is it written oupa?
νν. 46, 82. στάσδων, παννυχίσδοισαι. . . .
why not at v. 66, expodov, also, after Sappho and Theocritus? v. 51. άλyɛʊç, after Sappho alone;
yet v. 10. TÉλeos, the form of Theocritus and Pindar.
v. 74. TelpoνTI, recte, according to all three;
but v. 82. θορυβοῦσιν ought to be θορυβεῦσιν, if taken from κά'. v. 5. of Theocritus. He elsewhere has the forms, 41λéovTI, TOθεῦντι: κελαδέοντι is in Pindar.
ν. 80. πολίτων (at any rate, πολιτῶν) ought to be πολιτῶν. Ρ. has πολιτών and ἱππευτῶν; Τ. has μυκητᾶν, a word not unknown to the translators of Gray's Elegy into Greek.
Two errors, one in the structure of the stanza, and one in the signal misapplication of a tense, shall here finally be noticed; especially, because Mr. Hall in both points appears to have been misled by the practice of some very eminent scholars. Deference to such names might continue to mislead: and the following remarks will at least enable the young writer to judge for himself on a fair view of the objections proposed.
ν. 27, 8, 9. ἀμφί τυ ψυχρὸν νέφος ἆγ' ἀνία·
« Α δὲ γυναικῶν
φιλτάτα, κ. τ. λ.
The continuation of sense from stanza to stanza, if not too frequently occurring, admits of no controversy; unless where the break is sharp and sudden, in cases which hardly need to be specified here.
But the close union of the Adonic with the third verse might render it questionable, how far even the hiatus is allowable between them. Little doubt can arise of its being harsh and awkward to open a new sentence (as in the passage quoted is done) with an Adonic verse; of which the first and natural use is to close the metre with an agreeable rest.
On this ground of reason much more stress might be laid. But the direct authority of the original Poets, who wrote in this stanza, may justly be deemed more satisfactory and decisive.
In the two odes of Sappho, then, consisting of eleven stanzas, not one instance of the kind occurs: nor in the ode known by the name of Erinna, consisting of five stanzas, is one such instance to be seen.
Thus far for the Greek. Now for the Latin, which must be allowed to carry some weight in the argument, after all deductions for the different genius of Latin verse and of Greek with the very same metre.
Horace, remarkable for the limits fixed by him to the structure of the Sapphic, was not likely to disjoin the Adonic verse from the stanza to which it so naturally belongs. And in all his odes of that metre, one only, a light and gay composition, even seems to yield any pretence for the disjunction complained of.
Carmm. IV. xi. 1....6.
Est mihi nonum superantis annum
Est hederæ vis [in horto]
Multa, quâ crines religata fulges:
Ridet argento domus: &c. &c.
Catullus, though very irregular if compared with the models of Horace after his time, never offends against this rule. And