Juvenal and Hexameter

Juvenal and the hexameter

(*)

This study began as an investigation into the question of style in Juvenal. The originating context was the view that Juvenal’s satire is written in a grand or epic manner. manner. Vocabulary ocabulary,, syntax, syntax, word-order word-order,, and metre would would all come under consideration in a full investigation, investigation, but an exploratory sketch sketch by Jonathan Powell (1999) suggests strongly that this somewhat standard view is in need of – at the least – qualification. Juvenal’s Juvenal’s style, Powell argues, argues, has a rather pedestrian base in comparison comparison with the writers writers of elevate elevatedd hexameters, hexameters, i.e. epic writers, writers, of his own day, day, a base which is contaminated for satiric purposes with other elements. elements. These are generally elements elements recognisably drawn from loftier manners, manners, but they do not remain pure pure in their new context context ; rather, rather, they are themselv themselves es contamicontaminated by baser elements natural to that new context. There is much in Powell’s study with which I am in agreement, but there is still room for question question and qualification. In the course of pursuing the matter, I have both narrowed narrowed the sphere of operation (to metre) and broadened it (to include generic issues more generally). Thus, I consider consider hexam hexameter eter poets in epic, epic, didactic, didactic, bucolic, bucolic, epyllion, epyllion, satire, satire, and Statius’ Siluae. Before proceeding to the actual business there are two preliminary observations that need to be made. The first concerns Juvenal’s Juvenal’s contemporaries ; the second, the concept concept of a stylistic base. base. The relationship of Juvenal’s style to that of Latin epic remains an important question. Latin epic, epic, however, however, is not monolithically monolithically uniform over over its long history. If one is to say that Juvenal uses (or does not) a grand style, the first comparands must be his contemporaries (rather than, say, Virgil). Virgil). Virgil’s Virgil’s epic epic verse may have numbers of Ennian touches, but his hexameter is an Augustan one and not that of Ennius. Of course, what constitutes elevation elevation is partly communicated by the ‘old masters’, but through a contemporary filter. Immediately we run into a problem. On closer inspection, Juvenal’s contemporaries in the field field of epicwriting evaporate. evaporate. Juvenal Juvenal parodies parodies Statius’ lost de Bello Germanico of c. AD 90 (Juv (Juv. 4), and refers contemptuously to the Thebaid , published published around AD AD 91 (Juv. 7,82-87). 7,82-87). He refers also to Lucan Lucan (7,79), who died in AD AD 65. He may allude to the

(*) I am very very grateful grateful to to Drs Stephen Stephen HARRISON, Llewel Llewelyn yn MORGAN, and Bruce Bruce GIBSON for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

2

F. JONES

Argonautica (1,7-11)

of Valerius Flaccus, who died in AD 92 or 93. These figures (and the epigrammatist Martial) all predate the Satires by at least twenty years (1). There was some overlap between Juvenal and the prose writers Tacitus and Suetonius, but after this we know little of the developments in Latin literature until Fronto, Aulus Gellius, and Apuleius, all writers of a very different kind and manner (2). By the end of the second century interest in rhetorical display seems to have increased and an archaising interest in older literature had made itself felt. In the period between Tacitus and Fronto – the period in which we would place ‘Juvenal’s contemporaries’ – we know of Hadrian’s small poems in various metres and work in unusual metres by Florus and Annianus ( 3). These may hint that the changes visible in the later authors were already beginning. Of epics like those to which Juvenal refers or which he imitates and parodies there is little or no sign. The only evidence we can cite is a fragment of an Alexanderpoem in hexameters from after c. AD 160 (i.e. too late for Juvenal) by Clemens (4). There is a case for suggesting that the literature Juvenal draws on to make up the texture of his verse is – as are the names he uses in the Satires – from the past, but a past which is treated as a timeless cultural inheritance. The other preliminary issue is that of a stylistic base. Clearly there are elevated elements sprinkled around the body of the Satires. There are also plain

(1) Juvenal refers or alludes also to ‘typical’ epics (the unknown Cordus’Theseid (1,2), Telesinus’ unfinished epic (JUV. 7,22-26) and ‘typical’ subject matter – Heracles, Diomedes, Icarus (1,52-54), Aeneas, Achilles, and Hylas (1,162-4). For the dating of Juvenal’s Satires, see R. SYME, Roman Papers vol. III, ed. A. R. BIRLEY, Oxford, 1984, p. 1135-1157, especially 1156-1157 and 1143. (2) In this gap Greek literature continues to generate didactic, narrative and mythological epic, epigram, hymns for shrines, festivals and competitions, dramatic competitions, as well as poetry with a more prominent musical element (the citharodia). Some of this activity centred on Hadrian – for example, the narrative by Pancrates from Egypt about a lion hunt in which Hadrian killed a lion attacking Antinous, and citharodic songs about Antinous. See E. L. BOWIE, Greek Poetry in the Antonine Age in D. A. RUSSELL (ed.), Antonine Literature, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 53-90 ; E. L. BOWIE, Literature and Sophistic in A. K. BOWMAN , P. GARNSEY, and D. RATHBONE (edd), The Cambridge Ancient History XI : The High Empire, A.D. 70-192, Cambridge, 2000, p. 898-921 ; B . J . GIBSON, The High Empire : AD 69-200 in S. J. HARRISON (ed.), A Companion to Latin Literature, Oxord, 2005, p. 69-80. (3) See E. J. COURTNEY , The Fragmentary Latin Poets ; edited with Commentary , Oxford, 1993, p. 372-90. The fragments and witnesses, very few though they are, attest largely small-scale occasional or epigrammatic verse, and a ‘strong tendency to affected simplicity, to a mingling of colloquialism, even vulgarism, with archaism’(p. 372). Death, wine, country scenes and ‘Fescennine’ eroticism are attested topics. (4) E. J. COURTNEY , The Fragmentary Latin Poets [n. 4], p. 372. In the Florida (c. AD 160-170) Apuleius attributes to a Clemens a verse account of Alexander the Great’s ‘many sublime deeds’ (Flor. 7) and quotes (6) three lines of distinctly Virgilian hexameters (about the Ganges) which probably belonged to it. See COURTNEY , p. 401.

JUVENAL AND THE HEXAMETER

3

passages. Here we may remember the woman caught in adultery. Homo sum (Juv. 6,284), she concludes the speech for her defence, and the simplicity of her concluding turn is double-edged : elsewhere it might have had a noble resonance (5), but here it adds to the woman’s effrontery. If we look for pure and unmixed Juvenal we may come upon the same problem of stylistic difference from another angle. The end of the tenth satire presents what is surely a sensible and indeed incontrovertible position. If it is stupid to pray for anything that can turn out badly for us, we should pray – if for anything – then for that which will give us the capacity to bear whatever comes our way. A sound mind in a healthy body seems irreducibly good (6). But even here Juvenal contaminates the expression with a sideswipe at the trappings of any sort of prayer : ‘But so that you can pray for something and promise entrails and the holy sausages of a glossy little pig to the shrines, what one should pray for is a healthy mind in a sound body’ (Juv. 10,354-356 ; ut tamen et poscas aliquid uoueasque sacellis / exta et candiduli diuina tomacula porci, / orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano. ). We may believe that Juvenal’s style is, in fact, an anarchic mixture of styles ( 7). This problem may arise with other genres (one only has to think of the Eclogues or Georgics to be aware of wild fluctuations of vocabulary and style in different poems or sections), but one feels that it is more extreme in satire than elsewhere because of the generic tendency to parody. Nevertheless, if we start from the premiss that Juvenal’s satire contains allusions to epic and other genres and the style varies for local effects, we may be able to think in terms of a stylistic neutral against which to perceive the differences Juvenal wants us to be aware of. One could hardly perform a statistical analysis on only those parts of the Satires which contain no allusion and no stylistic parody – if such parts existed, disentangling them would be an insurmountable problem – but a broad comparison of generic patterns in Latin hexameters is still productive. I wish to consider here a number of metrical features across a broad range (temporal and generic) of hexameter poetry. My samples for statistical purposes have in all cases been of 100 lines, and in all cases where this has been possible the opening hundred lines. In the case of fragmentary authors I have used the first available whole lines up to the value of one hundred. The first feature I wish to consider is the separation of noun and epithet. Arguably, this could be considered a stylistic feature rather than a metrical one,

(5) For homo sum, cf. PLAUT., As. 243, 490, 564 ; TER., Hau. 77 ; Ad . 540 ; SEN., Ep. 95.53 ; PETR., 130.1 ; PLINY, Ep. 5,3,2 ; [QUINT.], Decl. 4,12. Although this is a miscellaneous collection, Juvenal’s irony is rather pointless unless we also feel the resonance of, for example, homo inter homines (cf. PETR. 39). (6) M. D. REEVE, Seven Notes in CR 20, 1970, p. 135-136, would delete line 356, arguing (in part) that Juvenal advises praying for virtue rather than health. (7) In the lines quoted, we may note the different registers of exta and tomacula.

4

F. JONES

but unarguably patterns of noun-epithet distribution are part of verse-construction at a basic level, and the phenomenon is, in any case, of such importance that it would be wrong to pass it over. In Latin hexameter verse the separation of noun and adjective within a verseline becomes the most obvious and one of the most important indices of stylistic elevation (8). The standard changes with time, however, so comparisons are of necessity somewhat complicated. The early poets Ennius and Lucilius are the most sparing of this pattern. Even here there is a probably a generic element, since in Ennius it is slightly more frequent than in Lucilius. Later – in the generation preceding the Augustan period – Lucretius and Cicero have higher figures than their predecessors Ennius and Lucilius, but they are low by the standards of later verse. In the same period, however, Catullus stands out from Lucretius and Cicero and favours this pattern very strongly indeed ( 9). A little later, Virgil’s Eclogues follow Catullus’ taste for the separation of noun and epithet (though not quite favouring it to the same extent). Virgil’s Aeneid, however, is clearly distinct, reverting rather towards the older manner ( 10). Of course the Aeneid is later than the Eclogues, but in this context hardly significantly so, and its author is the same man : we might seem then to be facing some sort of generic factor. Although this not simply a matter of traditional epic as opposed to modernist alternative forms such as the epyllion and bucolic, there are both backward- and forward-looking elements in the composition of the Aeneid , and they have an ideological as well as a stylistic importance in this poem which the

(8) T. E. V. PEARCE, The enclosing Word Order in the Latin Hexameter in CQ 16, 1966, p. 140-171, 298-320. When the figure is split across a line boundary its effect seems to be neutralised, perhaps because the coherence of the line as unit (i.e. verse) is blurred. However, in contexts where there is a noticeable rate of separation of noun and epithet within the line, split-line separations may perhaps reinforce the general effect. There are, of course, degrees of elevation : a noun-epithet pair split by a preposition is probably not significant at all, separated by a verb it is more significant, but less so (the format is able to move increasingly into prose ; J. N. ADAMS, A Type of Hyperbaton in Latin Prose in PCPhS 17, 1971, p. 1-16) than distributions where, say, another noun-epithet pair is located within the first pair, or the noun and epithet are placed at the beginning and end of the verse-line. (9) The anonymous authors of the Moretum and the Ciris generally resemble neoteric stylists, and are also both high in separation of noun and epithet, the author of the Moretum especially so. Also very high are various later didactic verse writers, Columella, Nemesianus (in the Cynegetica), the anonymous author of the Aetna, and (especially) Grattius. Lucretius is not uniform : in regard to separation of noun and epithet in the ‘pathetic’ style versus the ‘expository’ style in the De Rerum Natura see E. J. KENNEY (ed.), Lucretius De Rerum Natura Book III, Cambridge, 1971, p. 26-29. (10) Cicero still uses for metrical convenience older endings (-ai) and occasionally omits final ‘s’ before a consonant, in this coming some way between Lucretius and Catullus (see CIC., Orator 161).


5

intersection of the past, present, and is thematically so important. The later epic writers are interesting. Ovid’s Metamorphoses is comparable with Virgil’s Aeneid . Later again, Valerius Flaccus and Lucan are by comparison as markedly in favour of the separation of noun and epithet as Catullan epyllion (so too the Siluae of Statius). Statius’ Thebaid, if we take into account interlaced pairs of separated nouns and epithets, belongs with Valerius Flaccus and Lucan. By contrast, Silius Italicus’ epic resembles the Virgil of the Aeneid in this and in other features (as we shall see below). It looks as though to some extent the separation of noun and epithet is a modernising element as well as a stylistically elevating one. It is very prominent in Virgil’s Georgics (as in the Eclogues, but not the Aeneid ), and very much more prominent there than in the didactic poems of the preceding period, Cicero’s Aratea and Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. The later bucolic writer Calpurnius Siculus ( 11) favours the separation of noun and epithet very strongly indeed (counting double as well as single separations). Perhaps here we have a case of inflation as the author seeks to mark his work with a feature of the modernising Virgilian Eclogues (12), but one which was tending as time went on to become a more frequent mannerism in general. We might expect the avowedly pedestrian satirists to be different from other writers of hexameters. If we take the outlines given so far as crude markers we may insert the satirists. Lucilius is very sparing with the separation of noun and epithet indeed. He is, admittedly early, but his figure is lower than that for the epic of his contemporary Ennius (13). Horace’s avowedly pedestrian Satires are more sparing – in the case of Book 1 much more sparing – than hexameters in the other genres of his own day In Book 1, indeed, the figure is lower than any of the sample except Lucilius. Horace’s remaining books of hexameters (all satiric, or related to satire) rise to the level of the didactic poets of an earlier time, Cicero and Lucretius. The next extant satirist, Persius, also favours separation less than his contemporaries in other genres. The figure for Persius is a rough match for the later Horatian books rather than Book 1, but this does not mean that he starts at the

(11) The dating is still subject to debate : E. CHAMPLIN, The Life and Times of Calpurnius Siculus in JRS 68, 1978, p. 95-110 ; G. B. TOWNEND , Calpurnius Siculus and the Munus Neronis in JRS 70, 1980, p. 166-174 ; R. MAYER, Calpurnius Siculus : Technique and Date in JRS 70, 1980, p. 175-176 ; N. HORSFALL , Criteria for the Dating of Calpurnius Siculus in RFIC 125, 1997, p. 166-196 ; T. P. WISEMAN, Calpurnius Siculus and the Claudian Civil War in JRS 72, 1982, p. 57-67. (12) Nemesianus does not seem to do this in his Eclogues : the figures for both single and double hyperbaton are higher in his didactic work, the Cynegetica. (13) Ennius himself, it should be noted, is very sparing by the standards of later hexameter writers : the nearest match among later writers is provided by a satirist in the first book of Horace’s Satires.

6

F. JONES

level of stylistic elevation Horace had reached. In comparison with his contemporaries, Persius is less elevated, at least in this feature of the hexameter, than late Horace. Like the earlier satirists, Juvenal too favours separation of noun and epithet less than his contemporaries, but there are still differences. Juvenal is more free with this stylism than Persius. The difference between Juvenalian satire and contemporary hexameters in other genres is still present, but Juvenal seems closer to his contemporaries (if one can use the term so crudely) than Horace or Persius to theirs (14). Juvenal, on this score, is less pedestrian than the other satirists (15). When the noun-epithet pair encloses or is interwoven with another separated noun-epithet pair the effect is more elevated, and one can consider this phenomenon in its own right as well as merely letting such double separations contribute twofold to the figures for separation of noun and epithet. The picture that emerges is not straightforward. For patterned double separations we get extraordinarily high figures in the quasi-neoteric authors of the Culex and the Ciris, and Manilius. After these, the next highest figures occur in Catullus, Calpurnius Siculus, and – perhaps surprisingly – Lucan. Another apparently unhomogeneous group still have quite high figures : Virgil’s Eclogues (again, as with separation of noun and epithet generally, distinct from the other Virgilian poems), Cicero’s Aratea, Statius’ Thebaid (but not his Silvae), Ovid, and Juvenal. The lowest figures are for both Lucilius and Ennius, and Lucretius, Virgil’s Aeneid and Georgics , the epic of Valerius Flaccus, the later hexameters of Horace, and Statius’ Siluae. In each of these groups we find authors of different periods. The earliest authors are among those with the lowest figures, but Catullus – the next earliest – is among those with the highest. The conspicuous difference between the Eclogues and the other works of Virgil may suggest that there is an element of mannerism or flagrant stylism about the double separation, an idea supported by the difference between Catullus (high figures) and both his predecessors (low)

(14) J. G. F. POWELL, Stylistic Registers in Juvenal in J. N. ADAMS and R. G. MAYER (edd.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, Oxford, 1999, p. 324 gives figures (with a due note of caution about arbitrary assumptions about what constitutes a hyperbaton) for the first 50 lines of Horace’s Satires 1 (17), the Aeneid (20), Statius’ Thebaid (36), and Juvenal 1 (26). (15) Individual instances of hyperbaton cannot automatically be registered as ironic or parodic. Concentrations are a different matter, as at the beginning of the sixth satire. Here there is an unusual concentration of the more elevated stylistic features. Even here, however, it is too simple to talk of parody. Modern civilisation is shown as adulterated at the same time as the poeticised Golden Age is revealed as uncouth. This is what the standard poetic Golden Age looks like viewed through the contaminated eyes of the post-Golden era, the Ninth Age (JUV. 13,28). The complex mixture of styles mirrors the complexity of the perspective we are invited to share.


7

and his contemporary, Cicero (quite high, but not as high as Catullus), and also by the low or lowish figures for double separation in at least some of the pedestrian satirists (Horace, especially the later Horace, and Persius). Silius Italicus is not at the lowest end of the scale in absolute terms, but in comparison with most of the later authors he does not seem to favour double separation very much. In this – and in other features as we shall see below – Silius may intentionally be following the model of the Aeneid. Statius’ Siluae, although stylistically mannered, perhaps need to maintain the pose of near-improvisation too much to indulge in such a mannered device. Given the generic anomalies here, it is difficult to claim that high figures for double hyperbaton represent a grander level as such, but the pairing of Catullus and Virgil’s Eclogues in contrast to that of Horace and Persius suggests that double hyperbaton is a mannerism of conscious stylistic polish. There is probably a chronological or fashion element in which Catullus (very different from Lucretius in this and other respects) is a seminal figure. We may be inclined to see this level of stylistic decoration as a feature especially of neoteric verse and its descendants (including bucolic). It is striking that Juvenal is, though perhaps not by much and apart from the sample from Satire 10 (Book 4), the freest of the satirists with this figure, and matches some of the epic writers. This may help to strengthen the idea that Juvenal goes some way towards elevating satire’s relative stylistic position. Most hexameters end in words of two or three syllables. The use of single monosyllables at line-ends is a distinctive variation in hexameter verse. Its distribution seems at first to put Juvenal in an unlofty stylistic bracket with the other satirists. The phenomenon is important, but need not, in fact, conflict with the idea of a degree of elevation on Juvenal’s part. Monosyllabic line endings (even lines ending less objectionably in two monosyllables) ( 16), become very rare after Lucretius (already there are none in the sample from Catullus) ( 17), but they are

(16) The single monosyllable, but not double monosyllables, produces conflict of accent and ictus at the end of the verse-line. Figures for the two types are distinguished in the table below. (17) In fact there is only one real case in CAT. 64, dens at 315 (final est is elided at 147 and 301). J. HELLEGOUARC’H, Le monosyllabe dans l’hexamètre latin : essai de métrique verbale , Paris, 1964, 15-17 finds in the global figures for monosyllables at any point in the hexameter both a tendency towards the gradual elimination of the monosyallable, and a tendency to favour the monosyllable less in loftier genres. It is striking – and coherent with the results elsewhere in this paper than if we take a low figure for monosyllables as evidence of elegance or loftiness, we find Juvenal’s place in the sequence Catullus (64), Lucan, Statius, Virgil ( Aen. and Georg.), Lucretius, Horace, Persius unexpected. He falls in with Virgil’s Eclogues, within the range shown in the books of Lucretius, and significantly more polished than both Horace and Persius. The extreme position of Persius and the very low figure for Lucan are also in line with other evidence given in this paper.

8

F. JONES

found : they are present in Horace’s hexameter poetry, especially the Satires and first book of the Epistles (18). Double monosyllables are a significant presence in Persius (though with a smaller profile than Horace’s Satires), and both single and double monosyllabic line-ends are found in Juvenal (with a smaller profile than Horace’s Satires). Although both are found in the Aeneid (where Homer and Ennius often provide precedents), and – so far as one can see – both seem to have the same sort of frequency in the satirist Lucilius as in the epicist Ennius, they virtually disappear except in the satirists after the Republican period. Although it looks as though this feature becomes an element of satiric character, it must also be noticed that many cases of single monosyllables at line ends in Juvenal have special point, and may therefore be exceptional rather than part of a normal stylistic level as such (19). Other non-standard patterns of word shape at line-ends (typically final words of four or occasionally more syllables, or lines ending with double-spondees) have high figures above all in Ennius and Lucilius, then in Cicero, Lucretius and Catullus (in Catullus they are almost all associated with double-spondaic line ends), to a lesser extent in Persius and Juvenal, and to a lesser extent again Horace and Ovid. Quite often these cases arise from Greek names, and quite often (whether this is the case or not) there is in the satirists a special point. Nonetheless, after the earlier periods there appears a bias towards the satirists in these figures. There is also the evidence of the third foot word-break (caesura) in the hexameter, though this is rather ambiguous (20). Usually the caesura is found after the long syllable of the third foot in the hexameter (strong caesura). Alternatively, it may come after the first short syllable of the third foot (weak caesura), in which case it is often supported by strong caesurae in the second and fourth feet. Juvenal and – especially – Persius seem to be low in weak third foot caesurae compared to their contemporaries, but Horace is in a more complicated position. Most of his hexameter books have roughly the same order of frequency as Catullus, Lucretius, Cicero, Virgil’s Aeneid and Georgics, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, but much less than Virgil’s Eclogues and a number of later authors and bucolic generally (perhaps oddly, Statius is very high in both the

(18) For these features in Horace’s Satires and first book of Epistles see R. MAYER (ed.), Horace Epistles Book I , Cambridge, 1994, p. 13-21. (19) See J. HELLEGOUARC’H, Le monosyllabe [n. 18], p. 50-69 for more detail over a range of authors and various categories of final monosyllable. (20) See J. G. F. POWELL, Stylistic Registers in Juvenal [n. 15], p. 314. Perhaps it is significant that a noticeable number of lines in Persius (especially) and Juvenal lack a third foot caesura (15 in the first 300 lines of Juvenal’s sixth satire), whereas there are none in the sample from the Silvae and 7 in 400 lines of the Thebaid .


9

crafted Thebaid and the professedly impromptu Silvae) (21). Here it is the Eclogues that seem to stand out. In this case (as opposed to hyperbaton) they stand apart from Catullan epyllion, where we might have expected to see comparability rather – it is surprising that the modernising Catullus is so close here to the in some ways rather old-fashioned Lucretius. If, however, the weak caesura really is an elegance – as its high profile in the Eclogues suggests – it is noteworthy that the figure is about as high as for the Eclogues in the last two of Horace’s hexameter books, Epistles 2 and the Ars Poetica. In other respects Horace’s hexameters become more elegant with time and perhaps this is how we should see the increase in weak caesurae here too. We might note in this context that the figure for weak third foot caesura in Ennius’ epic is higher than that in the satirist Lucilius (22). Within the verse of individual authors the weak third foot caesura seems to be distributed rather randomly. The low concentration at Juv. 1,1-34 does not seem to have a special purpose, and the posture of indignant exclamation in that passage is not too dissimilar from that of Juv. 6,217-22 where there is an unusually high concentration. If, then, individual weak third foot caesurae, or even concentrations of them, are not significant for the tone at the level of the passage, it may be that they do not stand out as such. If, then, their general levels of frequency have any generic correlation it may be that this is by-product of other generic metrical characteristics. A high or low level may well in that case still contribute to an overall impression of a generic metrical or stylistic norm. Lines in which there is no third foot caesura – although there are exceptions – are most frequent in early authors and in the satirists, and amongst those most frequent in Lucilius and Persius. Here (as perhaps also in his comparatively low incidence of weak caesurae) Persius demonstrates a roughness which appears in a number of other phenomena considered in this paper. Amongst the satirists, the absence of a third foot caesura is by contrast rarest in Horace’s earlier hexameter books and Juvenal’s first two books. If we can take a regular presence of third foot caesurae as orthodox, we might see the low figures in the earliest Horatian works as part of the programmatic tightening up of Lucilian slackness. This, however, will not explain the low figures in Juvenal’s first two books. We should see him, rather, as conforming in this regard with the values of the less lowly hexameter genres. Figures for elision show mixed, but highly interesting – and possibly more palpable – results. It is important to distinguish between degrees of elision. The elision of long vowels and diphthongs – especially before short vowels, and (21) Unusually in this respect, Silius stands closer to the Eclogues and his own contemporaries than to the Virgil of the Aeneid and the Georgics. (22) Lucilius stands roughly equal to Catullus, Lucretius, Cicero, Virgil (Aeneid and Georgics), Ovid, and the satires of Horace (and Epistles 1), Persius and Juvenal.

10

F. JONES

especially elision of - ae – is more obtrusive than elision of short vowels (23). Nevertheless, clusters or concentrations of elision, whether largely or wholly of short vowels, can still draw attention to themselves. The beginning of Persius’ first satire has two elisions in line 1 (of short vowels), two more in line 2 (one short, one long) (24), two more in line 6 (of short vowels), and three in line 9 (of short vowels). The cumulative effect in this short initial passage is striking, but the broader picture is also noteworthy : in a sample of 100 lines Persius has seventeen lines containing two or more elisions. From the opposite angle, the extreme infrequence of any form of elision in Calpurnius Siculus (on whom, see below) also suggests that light elision cannot be ignored An extremely high figure for elision is found in Lucilius, but a very low one in Ennius. Both are at the early end of the period considered, and the large difference clearly has to do with generic aesthetics. It is of some note that the next highest figure after Lucilius is the satirist Persius. High figures are also found in Lucretius, but not in his contemporary Catullus. Here we may detect another factor at work. Catullus and Lucretius also differ in their treatment of final ‘s’ before a consonant, something that Cicero indicates ( Orator 161) was an issue of fashion (i.e. not genre) in this period (25). Thus Catullus is, and (in this respect at least) Lucretius is not, a modernist. In the next generation a high rate is still found in the Aeneid and the Georgics (the Eclogues are again distinct from the other Virgilian poems). The figure is less than half that for Lucilius (from whom Virgil differs in period and genre), and over twice that for Ennius (from whom he differs in period, but not genre). The only other really comparable figures are for later writers, the epic-writer Silius (who resembles Virgil in other metrical respects) and the satirist Persius (26). Among both his contemporaries in other genres and also writers of epic and didactic, Virgil seems to be anomalous. On the other hand, any proposition one might care to make about the figures for elision proves problematic. It is not the case that earlier authors are systematically freer with elision than later ; nor is it the case that satirists are systematically freer than writers of other kinds

(23) See N.-O. NILSSON, Metrische Stildifferenzen in den Satiren des Horaz, Uppsala, 1952 ; J. SOUBIRAN, L’élision dans la poésie latine, Paris, 1966. (24) The following vowel is long ; that is to say, this is not in itself the most flagrant form of elision possible (elision of long vowel before short vowel). (25) Common in Lucretius, still used by Cicero, but only once in Catullus (116.8). Cicero sees it as newly unfashionable (Orator 161). Note VIRG., Aen. 4,628-9, litora litoribus contraria, fluctibus undas / imprecor, arma armis, where Virgil breaks the sequence of polyptota by writing undas instead of fluctus, which would have been possible with elision of final ‘s’. (26) The anonymous author of the Ciris and Grattius are perhaps rather surprisingly favourable to elision, given their apparently high stylistic aspirations.

11


Table. — Verse figures per 100 line samples A B C D E F G H

monosyllabic line endings other non-standard line endings lines ending with two monosyllables lines with weak caesura in foot 3 lines with no caesura in foot 3 elisions Hyperbata inside lines Double-hyperbata inside lines

Author Ennius V., Aen. Ovid, Met. Val. Flacc. Lucan Silius Italicus Stat., Theb. Catullus 64

D 14 8 8 24 18 16 22 7 17 6 13 4 6 6 8 15 10 22 11 7 17 15 19 6 8 7 5 14 18 4 8 7 9 5 11

E 6 5 0 5 1 3 5 2 1 1 2 1 6 7 3 3 2 3 3 0 2 0 3 9 2 0 2 4 4 8 1 1 5 5 3

F 16 47 25 33 14 44 32 25 16 24 10 33 35 20 43 23 11 10 42 26 22 1 14 104 33 34 26 19 14 63 22 24 33 46 32

G 14 33 31 45 43 34 35 45 51 38 32 42 21 25 50 25 40 49 53 46 43 51 34 9 14 22 26 23 24 21 28 32 25 25 34

H 1 1 4 2 11 3 6 12 8 4 20 21 0 5 1 18 5 7 11 8 6 12 2 0 3 3 1 2 0 2 4 4 3 1 3

Stat., Silu. 0 0 0 25 * Sixteen of these are double-spondaic line ends.

0

18

47

1

Moretum Dirae Culex Ciris

Lucretius Cicero, Aratea V., Georg. Manilius Columella Nem., Cyneg. Grattius Aetna

V., Ecl. Calp. Sic. Nem., Ecl. Lucilius Hor., Sat. 1 Hor., Sat. 2 Hor., Epp. 1 Hor., Epp. 2 Hor., AP Persius Juv., Book 1 Juv., Book 2 Juv., Book 3 Juv., Book 4 Juv., Book 5

A 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 5 1 4 0 2 0 3 2 2 3 4

B 16 1 2 0 0 0 0 17* 0 0 0 1 8 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 15 3 1 1 2 0 4 5 1 6 1 1

C 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 7 7 1 2 6 2 4 3 3 3

12

F. JONES

of poetry. It is the case that among epic writers Virgil and Silius are exceptional. It is also the case that two satirists stand out as very free with elision compared to any other writers – except to some extent Virgil of the Aeneid and Georgics – and it is true that Horace begins his satiric career being quite free with elision (but only a little more than some epic writers and Lucretius), but increasingly less so after the Satires. By contrast Juvenal’s later books are freer than his earlier (he peaks in the penultimate book). Clearly this is an aspect of versification which means something to hexameter writers, but does not fall into a simple historical or generic pattern. If we look specifically at patterns of strong elision (elision of long syllables) and elision clusters in Augustan and later writers, the general picture alters only a little. Horace’s first book of Satires assumes a higher profile in this respect with ten strong elisions in the sample (of which two are followed by short syllables, and five are of monosyllables) (27). There are twelve cases in the sample of Silius Italicus (of which seven are followed by a short vowel – one involving - ae – but none are of monosyllables), eight cases in Persius’ Satires (of which four are followed by a short vowel, and two are monosyllables, and one is elision of - ae) (28), eight in the Aeneid (all are followed by long syllables, but none are of monosyllables), six in the Georgics (all are followed by long syllables, none are of monosyllables), four in Horace’s first book of Epistles (of which all are of long syllables and three are of monosyllables) (29), three in the Eclogues (all followed by long syllables ; one case is elision of a monosyllable) ( 30), three in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (all followed by long syllables, and none involving monosyllables), two in Statius’ Siluae (both followed by long syllables, neither with monosyllables), and one each in Juvenal’s first book of satires (not involving a monosyllable), and Statius’ Thebaid (followed by a short vowel, but not involving a monosyllable). In this evidence we see – as before – a distinction between the Aeneid and Georgics as against the Eclogues, the comparability of Silius and the epic Virgil, the increasing refinement of Horace’s hexameter poetry ( 31), and the falling together of the satirists Horace and Persius in contradistinction to Juvenal. In this respect there seems to be a clear element of elevated polish in Juvenal’s hexameters, although the evidence of the later books shows that a slight qualification is needed. Figures for elision of a long syllable are as follows : two in the

(27) HOR., Sat. 1,1,41, te ; 44, ni ; 81, te ; 86, tu. Three other monosyllables are elided, nam (33), dum (52), and quam (56). PERS. 1,62 elides -ae before occurrite. (28) PERS. 1,66, si ; 89, te. Two other monosyllables are elided, namely cum (9), and quem (44). (29) HOR., Epp. 1,1, 3, me ; 27, me ; 75, te. (30) V., Ecl. 1,40, me. (31) Cf. R. MAYER (ed.), Horace Epistles Book I [n. 19], 13-21.


13

hundred-line sample of Book 2 (one followed by a long, and one by a short vowel ; both elision of -ae), two in Satire 7 (Book 3), both followed by short vowels, four in Satire 10 (Book 4), two followed by a short vowel (one elision of -ae) and two by long vowels (one elision of a monosyllable ; si, 75), two in Satire 13 (Book 5), both followed by long syllables. The figure is never high, but the refinement – unlike that of Horace’s hexameters – diminishes somewhat towards the fourth book. As regards elision clusters, a cursory review of some Augustan and later authors shows only two modifications of any substance : Persius the satirist raises his profile, and Juvenal lowers his. Lines with two or more elisions (and in such cases it is usually a matter of short vowels) are found (in samples of 100 lines) seventeen times in Persius, ten times in the Aeneid , nine times in the Georgics , seven times in Horace’s Satires 1, six times in Silius Italicus, four times in Horace’s Epistles 1, three times in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, once in Virgil’s Eclogues, and not at all Lucan, or either Statius’ Thebaid or Siluae. In Juvenal Satires, there are likewise none in the first book, but two in Book 2, three in Book 3, six in Book 4, and four in the last book. Again we see a difference between Juvenal and other satirists, most marked in the first book, but somewhat diminishing in later books, especially the fourth. The global figures for all kinds of elision is middling rather than high in Cicero, Catullus (32), Virgil’s Eclogues, Ovid, Juvenal, and Statius’ Silvae (where there are only two elisions of long vowels in a hundred lines, both followed with long vowels). This does very little to take the edge off the impression received of Juvenal’s refinement in respect of elision gained from looking at heavy elision (33). On the other hand, the presence of the Silvae – however slapdash they pretend to be, they are not – should not surprise us (especially if we also believe that a high rate of weak third foot caesura was a sign of elegance, since they are very frequent in the Siluae) (34). The smoothness of low rates of elision is further supported by observation of the distinctly low rate in Lucan (whose sample hundred lines have no elision of long vowels, not elision clusters) (35), since he is also

(32) There are seven elisions of long vowels in CAT. 64, one of which is followed by a short vowel (64.70), and two of which ore on monosyllables. Of clusters there are only three. In Lucretius there are three elisions of long vowels (two followed by short vowels), but ten clusters. (33) See also J. SOUBIRAN, L’élision dans la poésie latine [n. 24], p. 597-610 on the generic factor in general, and 608-9 on Juvenal in this context. (34) Perhaps it is rather surprising at first sight that the impromptu (for so Statius says) Siluae are much more restrained with elision than the carefully wrought Thebaid . The spontaneity and casualness of the Silvae is, however, part of an elaborate game of display which is half-concealed at the same time as being ostentatious. (35) Such elision as one finds is chiefly on -que.

14

F. JONES

very distinctly high in the elegant hyperbaton and double hyperbaton (and the weak third foot caesura). Further corroboration comes from the fact that in this feature as in others Horace’s hexameter books move away from roughness (we have already seen this confirmed in the matter of heavy elision and elisions clusters), and also the fact that the Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus have a highish rate of weak caesura, very high figures for hyperbaton and double hyperbaton, and (in the sample taken) an astonishingly low – almost non-existent – figure for elision. Even in his early hexameter books Horace is much more sparing of elision ( 36) than the Virgil of the Aeneid and the Georgics (but considerably more free with it than the Virgil of the Eclogues). Calpurnius Siculus’ Eclogues have an almost complete absence of elision. If we consider this in the light of the figures for weak caesura, hyperbaton, and double hyperbaton, it seems possible that Calpurnius is taking to an extreme the distinction of Virgil’s Eclogues from his other works, and thereby defining it as a genre with its own metrical character in addition to its other individuating characteristics ( 37). On the other hand we are left with the question of Virgil’s Aeneid. The coincidence of Catullus and bucolic at one end of the scale, and Lucilius, the Virgil of the Aeneid and Georgics , Silius, and Persius at the other cannot be without significance. The resemblance of Silius to Virgil in this feature falls into line with his resemblance in other aspects of metre. We might wonder whether whatever effect this or that feature of verse technique has in Virgil is lost in Silius because he is simply being ‘Virgilian’, but we do not have to consider him independently. This allows us very clearly to see an opposition between the aesthetes, if one may so call them, on the one hand, and, on the other, Lucilius, the nonbucolic Virgil, and Persius, an opposition which in turn suggests that frequent elision marks a rough ‘manly’ style (38). This suits each in various ways. We can see how this suits Lucilius’ independent outspokenness, and the character attributed to him by later writers (39), Virgil’s Aeneid with the complex mix of forward and backward looking in its composition, allusiveness, and revaluation of past literature and ideologies, and the Georgics with its return, after the Theocritean

(36) Elision is a clear difference between Horace and Lucilius, one which we should see in the light of Horace’s strictures on Lucilius’ verse technique (HOR., Sat . 1,4,8-13 ; 1,10,1-3 and 50-1. (37) Nemesianus’ Bucolics seem to adhere to this reasonably closely, but his didactic Cynegetica seem to break the pattern by being even more polished. (38) See SOUBIRAN, L’élision [n. 24], 613-45 for the variety of local expressive effects of elision and elision clusters. (39) For Lucilius’occupation of a special place in the Romans’sense of themselves see Ll. MORGAN, Satire in S. J. HARRISON (ed.), A Companion to Latin Literature [n. 3], p. 177178 ; ‘adoption of the Lucilian mode conveys that all is right with the Roman world’.


15

Eclogues, to Hesiodic antiquity and the roughness of the earth. Finally, the tough

manliness I am attributing to a high rate of elision suits Persius’ abrasively Stoical postures. With elision, then, we appear to have a stylistic feature where the differences between authors are very striking, but where, if the satirists mark themselves off as a group, it is a group from which Juvenal distances himself. It is also a feature in which the early books of Juvenal seem as polished as the approximately contemporary epic author of the Thebaid . It is, indeed, very striking how the samples show an increasing freedom with elision as Juvenal’s books of satires proceed, along with a diminution of elegant or grand features such as hyperbata and double hyperbata ( 40). There is another body of material, which shows some similarities and some dissimilarities with the material rehearsed above. In 1991 Stephen Harrison gave figures for a particular kind of hexameter end – the format in which a noun is preceded by an adjective with a similar short ending, as discordia taetra or flumina nota (41). According to the figures provided by Harrison there is, in broad terms, a chronological evolution towards greater refinement marked by an increasing rarity in hexameter ends of this format. However, Harrison also notes some anomalies. Silius, for example, stands out from his contemporaries and (as above too) shows an anachronistic resemblance to the Virgil of the Aeneid . Lucan too shows less polish than might have been expected from a post Ovidian author. Harrison reminds us that Lucan used a lower and more realistic vocabulary than Virgil : ‘a (mildly) less refined vocabulary is matched by a (mildly less refined metrical practice, and both are deliberate authorial choices’ ( 42). However, the picture is complicated. As Harrison observes, other authors (Manilius and Germanicus) revert to a pre-Augustan level. Furthermore, as emerges in the material reviewed earlier in this paper, Virgil’s level of polish is itself anomalous in some respects – in a number of respects other than that considered by Harrison, it is the earlier Eclogues that show remarkable polish, whereas the Georgics and Aeneid show consciously less refined features, and Lucan himself has some unexpectedly refined features. As regards the satirists, in the use of this kind of hexameter end Horace stands with Virgil, Persius (no examples in the corpus) is perhaps unexpectedly refined for a satirist, and Juvenal shows a level

(40) It is interesting that the ‘rough’ feature of elision increases at the same time as Juvenal’s posture of direct anger decreases. (41) HARRISON (1991), with an appendix in HARRISON (1995). S. J. HARRISON, Discordia Taetra : The history of a hexameter ending in CQ 41, 1991, p. 138-149 ; see also S. J. HARRISON, Discordia Taetra : Appendix in CQ 45, 1995, p. 504. (42) S. J. HARRISON, Discordia Taetra, 1991 [n. 42], p. 146.

16

F. JONES

like that of Virgil and Horace – i.e. noticeably less refined than most epic writers close to his own time (43). We may now ask to what extent there is anything like a distinctively satiric version of the hexameter, and part of this question must be to consider what such a version would be distinct from. There are, perhaps, indications that Virgil and Calpurnius sought to distinguish their bucolic from epic in metrical terms. A distinction between epic and didactic is less easy to believe in ( 44). Certainly in the case of Virgil there is much more of a difference between the bucolic and the rest of his poetry than there is between the epic and the didactic. Within epic itself there are variations. Virgil and Silius, for example, are much less averse to elision than other epic writers. Lucan, although he shows unelevated signs in vocabulary and in the level of the discordia taetra hexameter end, nonetheless has also a number of features that seem symptomatic of stylistic elevation : a low rate of elision, and high rates of hyperbaton and double hyperbaton. The early poet, Ennius, is quite different from later verse-writers. However, despite such variations we find that the satirists tend in comparison with their contemporaries – and in various degrees – to have lower figures for elegant or elevated features and higher figures for unelevated features. Persius very strongly favours elision, a distinctive, but not a particularly satiric, characteristic, but he is also rough in all the ways satirists tend to be, except in his apparent distaste for the discordia taetra type hexameter end ; Horace becomes less unrefined as his work proceeds, Juvenal less refined. Of the three Juvenal is the closest in most respects to the manner of serious, non-satirical poets of his own time. Various features, for Powell, erode the validity of describing Juvenal’s style as grand. He points to a persistent stylistic contamination, the mingling with more elevated features of various prosaic elements such as diminutives, vocabulary, and certain turns of phrase, and concludes that in general Juvenal belongs with the pedestrian satirists and that epic features in his poetry stand out against this background as different – i.e. not as part of his own style as such, so much as something alien, or perhaps a target. Powell goes on to say that ‘epic’ passages

(43) Juvenal also seems to stand with the satirists rather than the loftier authors in the matter of trochaic punctuation, although here too there are anomalies, such as the high figure in and Statius’ epic Thebaid (J. GÉRARD, La ponctuation trochaïque dans l’hexamètre latin d’Ennius à Juvénal , Paris, 1980, p. 206-207). It might be noted that the figures seem also to distinguish Virgil’s Eclogues from the Georgics and Aeneid. (44) On the relationship between didactic and epic, see K. VOLK, The Poetics of Latin Didactic, Oxford, 2002, p. 25-43 (didactic is separate from epic) ; P. TOOHEY, Epic Lessons : an Introduction to Ancient Didactic Poetry, London, 1996, p. 5-6 (didactic is a form of epic) ; see further M. GALE, Myth and Poetry in Lucretius, Cambridge, 1994, p. 99-104 ; M. GALE (ed.), Latin Epic and Didactic Poetry : Genre, Tradition and Originality, Swansea, 2004).


17

in Juvenal may indeed be infiltrated by the lower style of the linguistic matrix in which they are set. At one point he takes a rather more advanced position : ‘some passages ... appear to shift about so quickly from the everyday world to the world of epic and back again that the unwary reader might get an impression of a chaotic mixture of stylistic levels.’ (45). This advanced position has a considerable degree of plausibility, and it is not just a matter of linguistic register ; Juvenal also blends allusions to genres of widely different stylistic and thematic colouring in the allusive texture of his satire. However, the evidence of a range of metrical phenomena adduced above suggests the possibility of a slightly different reading. Although there is a progression towards a somewhat more pedestrian tone (peaking in the fourth), the verse technique of Juvenal’s earlier books is closer to his grander contemporaries than earlier satirists were to theirs, and it is plausible to think of this as part of a palpably more literary general tenor. University of Liverpool, UK.

(45) J. G. F. POWELL, Stylistic Registers in Juvenal [n.15], p. 327.

Frederick JONES.

Juvenal and Hexameter

Recommend Documents