Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:28:16.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elision of Atque in Roman Poetry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

O. Skutsch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Every reader of Roman poetry must be struck by the fact that atque is so much more frequently elided than left unelided; and that the rarity of unelided atque is not—a matter of chance may be seen from a comparison between the poets' treatment of this word and that of others of a similar metrical structure: i.e. disyllables beginning with an open long vowel and terminating with an open short one. Such words ending in -que or -ě (utque, inque, ipse, ante, ire, ecce, and the like) are common enough in Roman poetry and are, particularly in elegiac verse, more often found unelided than elided. It would be a waste of time to give figures for them all, but those for ille may be cited as an example. In Virgil, Aen. 1 and 2 the proportion of unelided to elided ille is 57 per cent, to 43 per cent.; in Catullus' hexameters 50 per cent, to 50 per cent.; in his lyrics 75 per cent, to 25 per cent. In his elegiacs there are 3 unelided to none elided. In Ovid's Met. the proportion is 83 per cent, unelided to 17 per cent, elided; in hisArs Am. 1 and 2 84–6 per cent, to 15–4 per cent.; in his Fasti 1 and 2 97–5 per cent, to 2–5 per cent. In Tibullus 1 and 2 the proportion is 87 per cent, unelided to 13 per cent, elided; in Propertius 1 and 4 73–7 per cent, unelided to 26–3 elided.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 3-4 , July 1948 , pp. 91 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 91 note 1 I owe these figures to Mr. C. Carr of Hertford College.

page 92 note 1 A point noticed by Axelson, B. (UnpoḔtische Wörter (Lund, 1945), p. 83)Google Scholar.

page 92 note 2 Perhaps 14, for eius atque in 3. 11. 18 is probably corrupt.

page 92 note 3 In Satt. 1,2,3,7,8,9,10.

page 92 note 4 I mean by this Tibullus 1 and 2, Lygdamus, and the Corpus Tibullianum.

page 92 note 5 I include the later Heroides but exclude the Nux and ConsoUUio.

page 92 note 6 Leumann-Hofmann, , Lai. Gram., p. 663Google Scholar(which doubts the passage).

page 93 note 1 A not uncommon form in Ovid: cf., for example, Pont. 1.8.33 aquedomo; ibid. 9.48 aque tuis.

page 93 note 2 See Kühner-Stegmann, , Ausführ. Gram. lat. Spraehe, II. i, p. 493Google Scholar.

page 93 note 3 See Owen on Trist. 2. 28.

page 95 note 1 Jaeger, W., Herm. 51 (1916), 312 fGoogle Scholar.

page 95 note 2 Final -s is dropped about a hundred times in the Annals. But it is the nature of the exceptions rather than the number of positive instances which proves the rule. Lucilius, who allows -s in thesi to make position, does so very rarely. I can find only five certain examples (all of which Havet tries to emend): 243; 332; 563; 1060; 1067. Add three which are somewhat doubtful: 1194; 1342; 1368. In view of this one might consider the absence of scansions such as qualis consiliis in the fragments of Ennius accidental. The proper names, however, show that a linguistic reason, not accident, is responsible for it.

page 96 note 1 Norden, l.c. 64 f., reproaches other scholars for failing to observe that what we have here is Ennius' own testimony. I wish it were so. Unfortunately sed ipse didt cur id facial may mean no more than that Cicero himself interprets the passage which he is about to quote in this sense.

page 98 note 1 A shocking instance is an. 260: sulphureas posuit spiramina Nans ad undas.

page 98 note 2 (ac)cum-; fam-; iac-; iug-; mac-;(de) pop-; (in)stim-; stab-; tum-; ul-ulare.

page 99 note 1 Thus recently Timpanaro, S., Stud. ital. 21 (1946), 74Google Scholar.

page 100 note 1 A pretty example of the plural of scorn. By alii Vahlen means his enemy Lucian Mueller. Compare Ennius an. 213 scripsere alii rem, meaning Naevius.

page 100 note 2 Thus Jones, J. C., Arch.f. lot. Lex. 14 (1906), 234Google Scholar.

page 100 note 3 Read on him the excellent article of the Biographie Universelle, s.v. Estaço. For further references see Pfeiffer, R., Philol. 87 (1932), 194 n. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 100 note 4 Rhodiginus is considered the forger by Madvig, , Opusc. Acad. i. 1 ff.Google Scholar, 26 ff., and Crusius, O, Philol. 47 (1889), 434 ffGoogle Scholar. Against this view see Reinach, S., Revue de Philol. 30 (1906), 275 ffGoogle Scholar(=Cidies, mythes et rel. iv (1912), 80 ff.)Google Scholar, and Rostagni, A., Ibis, 1920, 23 n. 4Google Scholar.

page 101 note 1 The fact that Columna (p. 201 = 121 Hessel) is unable to trace the origin of an Ennius line quoted by Parrhasius must be judged differently. Parrhasius, who obtained the Codex Neapolitanus of Charisius from Bobbio and edited various grammatical treatises, was the most learned man of his generation (on his books and manuscripts cf. Jannelli, C., De Auli Iani Parrha sii vita et scriptis, Naples 1844, pp. viii ffGoogle Scholar.) and may have had access to sources unknown even to Columna. Moreover, it is not altogether certain that he took the fragment from any source, In his main work, De rebus per epistulas quaesitis, in a letter to Antonius Tillesius, he quotes Cic. nat. deor. 3. 44 quos omnes Erebo et nocte natos ferunt, and adds: Ennius: quos omnes Erebo perhibent et nocte creates, solvit enim Cicero Ennii carmen, eiusque numerum ad solutae orationis numeros transfert. Columna states explicitly that Parrhasius must be trusted, and Merula follows him. All other editors, however, tacitly omit the fragment. I am under the impression that Parrhasius, whose good faith can hardly be impugned, may have mistaken for a statement of fact what he originally jotted down in his Cicero copy as a conjecture. But the matter is very doubtful, and editors of Ennius must not lightly reject Parrhasius' testimony.

page 101 note 2 Another ‘fragment’ may be dealt with in a note. Valmaggi(an. 101) prefixes.

Pemonoe Burro! cluo purpurei Epirotae to the famous amphiboly

Aiio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse.

The author of the mischief is Stowasser, , Wien. Stud. 13 (1891), 325Google Scholar f., who extracted this reading from Porphyrio on Hor. art. poet. 403 dictae per to carmina sortes: per versus exametros reddidit responsa Phemonoet pyrroclio tamquam purphoeri poetae aio te Aeacida, eqs. The supposed Ennius line is most peculiar. It will perhaps be sufficient to restore the words of Porphyrio: Epirotae foreripoetae is obviously correct. So is Pyrrho for purpho (Plasberg ap. Vahlen an. 179; but Renaissance editions already print Pyrrho Epirotae). Phemonoet pyrroclio demands a somewhat more drastic operation. If Pyrrho is correct beforeEpirotae it cannot be correct here. Pythio is nearest, and indeed the scholiast can hardly fail to explain that Phemonoe is the Pythian priestess. Thus read:per versus exametros reddidit responsa Phemonoe e Pythio oraclo, tamquam (=velut) Pyrrho Epirotae:Aio te, eqs.