Prose Rhythm of Sallust and Livy 9122002804, 9789122002802

Citation preview

HANS AILI

THE PROSE RHYTHM OF SALLUST AND LIVY

ACT A UNIVERSIT A TIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS Studia Latina Stockholmiensia

----------XXIV----------

The Prose Rhythm of Sallust and Livy

By HANS AILI

& WIKSELL INTERNATIONAL STOCKHOLM I SWEDEN

ALMQVIST

A Dissertation for the Doctor's Degree in Latin University of Stockholm Department of Classical Languages S - 106 91 Stockholm

Spraklig granskning: Andrew Casson

© I 97 9: Hans Aili ISBN 91-22-00280-4 Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm Printed in Sweden by Go tab, Stockholm 19 79

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

7

I. I The subject for study 7 1.2 The problem 8 1.2.1 The theory 9 1.2.2 The nature of clausulae 11 1.2.3 The method 14 1.3 The present stydy 15

2. Questions of Method 17 2.1 Notation of metrical patterns I 8 2.2 Evaluation 19 2.2.1 The method of external comparison 21 2.2.2 Comparison between clausulae before differe,nt pauses 25 2.2.3 The method of internal comparison 32 2.3 The typology of clausulae 40 2.4 Principles of sampling 45 2.5 Principles for rejecting clausulae 48 2.6 Texts investigated 49

3. Cicero 51 3.1 Purpose of this chapter 51 3.2 The metrical evidence 51 3.2.1 The length of the favoured clausulae 52 3.3 The typological evidence 55 3.3.1 No. 31 u----~56 3.3.2 No. 27-28 -u--~ 57 3.3.3 No. 18 -uuu-~ 60 3.3.4 No. 23-24 --u-~ 62 3.3.5 No. 13-16 --u~ 63 3.3.6 The clausula heroa No. 19-20 -uu-~ 63 3.4 Summary of the results 65 3.5 Confirmation throu!!;h earlier research 65

4. Sallust 69 4.1 The system of "historical" clausulae 69 4.2 The origins of the "historical" system of clausulae 69 4.3 Sallust's metrical clausulae 76 4.3. l No. 7-8 --uu ~ 7 7 4.3.2 No. I 9-20 -uu-~ 77 and 31 u ----~ 78 4.3.3 Nos 30 -u---~ 79 4.3.4 No. 14 -u--u~ 79 4.3.5 No. 26 -uu--~

5

4.3.6 Conclusions 80 4.4 The typology of Sallust's clausulae 80 4.4.1 The general tendencies 80 4.4.2 No. 1-8 uu.!!. 81 4.4.3 No. 9-16 -u.!!. 82 4.4.4 No. 17-24 u _.!!. 8 7 4.4.5 No. 25-32 __ .!!. 92 4.5 Summary of Sallust's clausulae 96

5. Livy 98 5.1 Introductory remarks 98 5.2 Livy's metrical clausulae I 00 5.2.1 The First Decade 100 5.2.2 The Third, Fourth and Fifth Decades 103 5.2.3 The development of Livy's system of clausulae 105 5.3 The typology of Livy's clausulae 110 5.3.1 The constancy of Livy's typology 111 5.3.2 The typological system 111 5.4 The origins of Livy's system of clausulae 122 5.5 The "historical" clausulae after Livy 126 5.5.1 Velleius Paterculus 126 5.5.2 Cunius Rufus 127 5.5.3 Tacitus 128 5.6 Summary 129

6. Conclusion 131 6.1 Questions of method 6.2 Results 132 6.3 Final remarks 134

131

Index of Ancient Authors 135 Appendix: Tables A 1 to A 11 136 Bibliography

6

148

CHAPTER I

Introduction

I. I The subject for study

Ever since the reintroduction of Latin prose rhythm as a subject for scholarly investigation in the last decades of the nineteenth century, interest has centred on Cicero and those Roman authors who partly or wholely imitated his prose rhythm. Cicero's position in the focus of attention is quite natural, for, besides being the foremost Roman orator (thus providing the most fertile field for stylistic studies) and the model of classical prose style in general, he was himself the first Roman whose theories of the nature of prose rhythm have survived to our day. His practice, moreover, became the norm for most subsequent Roman prose writers, almost irrespective of literary genre. A fact which has received far less attention is that there existed in the Golden Age of Roman literature a tradition of prose rhythm which was quite independent of the ideals taught by Cicero. To this tradition belonged the historians Sallust and Livy. It is this tradition, its origins, its nature and its survival after Livy which is the main subject of the present study. For, although it has long been known (but not universally accepted) that in the matter of prose rhythm Sallust and Livy show identical preferences, many facets of this point of common taste have remained obscure and even unnoticed until the present day. The subject for the present study requires one further clarification, for, if the word "rhythm" can be used in a very great number of different senses, the term "prose rhythm" can be used in at least two, if we follow the distinction introduced by the Dutch scholar de Groot (I 921, 13 sq.): metric rhythm, which is the succession of short and long syllables, and periodic rhythm, which is the arrangement of different parts of the sentence to a rhythmic whole, the period. In this work we shall only deal with metric rhythm, which will, moreover, be studied only in one context of the sentence, namely at its end. In other words it is the metrical clausula which is the true object of investigation in this study. The reasons for so limiting the field of study are two. Firstly, although rhythm pervades the whole structure of the period, the clausula is, as it were, the focal point: tpe point towards which the sentence flows, and, having reached it, 7

comes to rest. 1 The primary importance

of the clausula for the understanding

of ancient prose rhythm is in fact a commonplace among modern scholars. Secondly, the simultaneous study of the rhythm of the interior and the clausulae of the periods would entail serious problems of method. In a quantitative, statistical investigation such as the one presented in this study it is far more profitable to investigate one problem at a time, etablishing existing facts where they are most clearly to be observed.

1.2 The problem Modern systematic study of the ancient theory and practice of prose rhythm began with the works ofWiist (1881), Muller (1886), Havet(l 892) and Bornecque (1898 a and b). Activity in this field was especially high in the first three decades of our century, when important studies were published by Zielinski (1904; 1920), Blass (1905), Bornecque (1907), Laurand (1907; 1911), Zander (1914), de Groot (1919a and b; 1921; 1926), Broadhead (1922) and Novotny (1917; 1929). After this period interest appears to have waned somewhat, Hagendahl (1936) being the only scholar to publish a major study until the appearance of Schmid's (1959) monograph signalled a certain renewal of activity. In the nineteen-sixties monographs on the subject of classical prose rhythm have been published by Carnevali (1960a and b), Werber (1962) and Primmer (1968), while Leeman (1963), Wilkinson (1966) and Drexler (196 7) have devoted considerable parts of general treatises on style or metrics to this subject. The study of ancient prose rhythm, which is the study of a rather abstract stylistic phenomenon, suffers from a remarkable lack of consensus among its students, both as to the methods of investigation as well as to the results obtained. The dissension is of a degree which has made Novotny (1929, I), whose study is a very valuable guide to research done from the time of the Humanists up to the year 1929, state: "il s'agit d'une branche clans laquelle peut-etre plus que clans toute autre les specialistes ont travaille parfois sans considerer ce que d'autres avaient fait. La continuite si desiree de }'evolution des etudes n'a pas encore ete etablie." This being so, we may profitably devote a few pages to the most contested areas in this field. These are (I) the import of the theories of the foremost ancient authorities, Cicero and Quintilian, upon the observable practice of

I. C( especially Cicero, Or. 199... Q.uarecum au res extremum semperexspectentin eoqueacquiescant,id uacare numero non oportet,sed ad hunc exitum iam a principioJerri debet uerborum ilia comprehensioet tota a capite itaJl.uereut ad extremum ueniens ipsa consistat.And 200 ... Atque omnia ilia et prima et media uerba spectarr debent ad ultimum.

8

ancient writers, (2) the precise nature of the clausulae of ancient writers and (3) the right method to use for studying these clausulae.

1.2.1 The theory Prose rhythm in the sense of clausulae has been discussed by Cicero mainly in the third book of the De oratoreand in the Orator 168-238 2 • The statements made by Cicero relating to clausulae in these two works have been subjected to close scrutiny by most scholars in this field. Many incongruities have been noted between Cicero's theory and practice, especially concerning the clausulae (more correctly the metrical feet suitable for clausulae) recommended and those actually favoured by him: when a statistical study is made of his clausulae, it is immediately apparent that, for instance, the clausula heroa-u u _ _y_,which seems to have been recommended by him in Or. 21 7, is almost non-existent in the statistical material, while on the other hand the "cretic + spondee" -u __ _y_is used very frequently indeed, although it was never mentioned by Cicero in his theoretical discussion of clausulae. These difficulties have elicited various reactions from modern scholars. Zielinski (1904, 4; 1920, 15) and de Groot (19196, 22 sq.) have seriously doubted whether Cicero knew his own practice. For these two scholars the study of ancient theory was a secondary consideration, the primary task being to investigate the observable practice, the results of which could be used to correct ancient theory. On the other side attempts have been made to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between Cicero's theory and practice. Represent· atives of this school of thought are Laurand ( 190 7, 152 sqq.) and Schmid ( 1959). The latter especially, has levelled very harsh criticism against those who investigate Cicero's prose rhythm without reference to his own theory. A full discussion of this problem, the theories of the ancients and their applicability to their observed practice, has no place in this study, for, whatever the true meaning of the theories, they are obviously only important for the full understanding of Cicero's prose rhythm, which concerns us only marginally. 1 shall, however, discuss briefly those passages in Cicero and Quintilian (in the ninth book of his Institutio Oratoria)which mention those clausulae which were favoured by Sallust Cicero mentions -u u _ _y_,with praise completely avoided.

and Livy. expressly the dactyl + spondee, the hexameter ending in Or., although this clausula in his own practice was almost A further discussion of this clausula in Cicero can be found

2. Collections of ancient testimonia on the subject of prose rhythm have be-en published by Bornecque (1907) and Clark (I 909).

9

in ch. 3.3.6. It was strongly favoured by both Sallust and Livy. As for other clausulae, Cicero's remarks about the spondee (Or. 216)3seem to indicate that he did not altogether reject it at ends of periods but preferred it to occur at ends of cola and commata. It is noteworthy, however, that Cicero only mentions the single spondee --, not the double sponde ----, which is the favoured clausula in Sallust and Livy. Nothing, finally, is said that might be interpreted as a sign that Cicero knew of any alternative system of clausulae favoured by Roman historians. That he could not mention the prose rhythm of Sallust and Livy is obvious for chronological reasons. Quintilian, living in a later era than Sallust and Livy, must at least in theory have had the opportunity of knowing that they favoured other clausulae than Cicero did. If we start with the single clausulae, Quintilian condemns the clausula heroa, 9,4, 75 and 102, in accordance with Cicero's practice but without mentioning Cicero's having accepted this clausula in Or. 21 7. Quintilian does not name Sallust or Livy in connection with the clausula heroa; the example he gives of this clausula is quoted from Brutus: Peius cluditfinis hexametri, ut Brutus in epistulis: ':..placuisse Catani" (9,4, 75). Quintilian does mention, in at least partly positive terms, that clausula which I have given No. 29-32 ___ .!L_In 9,4,101 he says Duo spondii non Jere se iungi patiuntur, quae in uersu quoque notabilis clausula est. ni cum idfieri potest ex tribus quasi membris: '~..comparat is contra nos.?" - una syllaba, duabus, una 4 • Two spondees

(----) thus form a bad clausula, except when they occur in the word combination -/--/-. Having also condemned the dactyl + spondee, that is, the heroic clausula -uu-.!L, Quintilian goes on to say (9,4,102; remarks within brackets are mine)Bacchius (u --) et cludit et sibi iungitur ... Contrarius quoque qui est (palimbacchius --u) cludet, nisi si ultimam syllabam longam esse uolumus, optimeque ), aut bacchium: "quad habebit ante se molosson: "ciuis Roman us sum"(No. 32 -----u hie potest nos possemus" (No. 31 u----u). 103. Sed uerius erit cludere choreum praecedente spondio (No. 29-32 ---u ), nam hie potius est numerus: "nos possemus" et "Romanus sum'~ The clausula given by me No. 29-32 ___ JL has thus been treated as two different clausulae by Quintilian. This is fully in accordance with his own expressed taste (9,4,93): neque enim ego ignoro in fine pro longa accipi breuem, quia uidetur aliquid uacantis temporis ex eo quad insequitur accedere: aures 3. Or. 216: Ne spondeus quidemJunditus est repudiandw, etsi, quod est e longis duabus, hebetioruidetur rt tardior;habet tamm stabilem quemdam et non experlfm dignitatis gradum, in inciiianibus uero multo magis et in membris. This passagxistt>nct>of a hierarchy of dausulat> in tht> st>nst>cfrscribed below, ch. 2.2.2. 4. It is nott>worthy that comparatis, or comparatii, is the rt>ading of all olde, MSS; on-'

NW

>-'

N

nr; (fl

"'

3

4

5

vu-uv:::!

6 7

-u-vu~ u--V\..J~

8 ---

9 10 11 12 13 '~

15 16

\...f\)l..,J-L'"::;!

-uu-u::::'. v-v-u':!.

--u!,C)--

-

--\_,:::'.'.

,---u'::! ----u"

17 18 1 \ ,-\-'tJ-":::! 20 --u, ,-LY_

1 7 2 2

1 3 1 1

0 4 2 10

0 2 4 4

6 33 13 28

5 22 5 15

2 30 0 0

5 2~

5

8

8

l

36 45

32 28

25 26 27 28

6 0 14 33

4 1 18 52

l

l

-,,J--LJ_

u-,,--LY_ --,J--LJ_

29 uv---,! 30 -,,---~ 31 .,----~ 32 -----v

Sum total Probability

7

6

lc'.i

I

11 I

10 3 3

21

0

'4

6 6

9

11

9

- - - - - - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

0 0 0 0

- - - - - - - - -

-

1 2

1 1

1 2

- - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -

- - - -

0 0 0 0

-

-

- - - -

- - - 1 -

1 -

1

2 -

1 1

-

0 0 0 0

-

-

-

- - - - -

-

-

-

- 1 - 1

0

-

- 1

1

- - - - - - 1 -

-

1

1 1 4

1 3

-

1

-

2

- 1 -

- - -

-

- l l

- - 1 1

-

-

- l

0.3 1. 7 0.5 0.5

0 0 1 0

0.0 1. 0 1.0 1. 9 9.6

1

55

I

l I

3. l

18 43

26

7. 5

0 4

8

57

l

16

1. 2 10.0 0.2

0 0

31

0 )

0

2.3 1. 6 11. 9 12.8

0

1. 7 0.2 5.6 14.9

()

0.3 0.7 3. 1 1. 7

0 0 0

l

13

68 73

l

2 h

1 () 19

32 85

0 38

I4

1 9 5

2 4 18 10

310 262

572

3 9 5

of final

•

28 29

59

word

l

L

-

-

-'

w w

N

N

>-'

>-' >-'

N

>-'

>-'

,_. N

~

N

>-'

1 - - 1 - 1 - - -

l

1

-

- - - - -

-

0 4 1 2

-

- - - -

-

0 1 4 8

- - - - -

-

-

0 0 1 0

3

- - 5 - - 10 11 - - - 8 2 2 8 3

5 21 8 15

-

1 2 1

1 2 0 1

0 0 0 0

1 - 10 - -

1 10 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 1 2 7

0 0 0 5

0 0 1 10

0 0 0 2

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0

42

7

l

-

l -

1 5 1

-

17 6 12

1 1

1 4 0 1

- -

-

4 36 1 0

6

- - 2 3 - - 4 1 4 11 31 - 5 11 5

5 4 47 21

3 15 9 4

>-'

>-'

2 8 3 4

-

•

>-'

>-'

>-'

...... ...... >-'

N

>-'

•

N

>-'

N

I

•

>-'

•

r--'

') L,'f

18

1

1

21 u,,-u-LY_ 22 _v_u_':::! 23 u--,,-LJ_ 24 --- ''J--'::!.

0 3

>-'

>-'

W

V,

r--'

----

N

~

........ r--'

:3

>-'

w w

Cl)

r:

c-'

N

3 15 24

- 4 - - 15 21

- - -

-

l

5 0 18 28

-

- 1 2 4

3 1 2 9 6 16

12 28

1 2 1 3

-

- 1 1 2 15 3

1 1 17 5

-

-

178 0.311

- -

- 1 1

3

l

247 0 .432

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

1 2

2

5

1 8

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.073

0.012

Table

A 2: Sallust,

Coniuratio

Catilinae

and Bellwn Iugurthinwn: I-'

& 2