Metrical Meaning and Monumental Memory Hans Bork · BSR Project · . The difference between prose and verse is a matter of counting: verse is the organization of phonological (i.e., sound) features in time according to consistent, numerically defined units.1 As such, verse (that is, metrical language) is defined by prosodic and linguistic criteria. . Poetry however is defined by aesthetic and intentional criteria, and is notoriously difficult to categorize. Not all verse—i.e., metrical language—is necessarily poetry (e.g., the metrical philosophy of the Presocratics), and not all poetry is necessarily metrical (e.g., Frank O’Hara, and many other modern poets). . Latin metrical norms underwent a radical shift during the 3rd–2nd centuries as poets moved from the Saturnian meter (and possibly other ‘native’ Italic meters) to meters adopted from the Greek literary tradition.2 . The phonological features counted in verse are arbitrary, and vary according to cultural tradition, literary taste, and the structural constraints of the language. One can count syllables, stress accents, pitch accents, syllable lengths, alliterative stress, and so on. In the case of Latin, poets went from counting word stress in Saturnians to counting syllable durations in the Greek meters.3 . Verse/metrical language is an inherently auditory phenomenon. Organized sound only makes sense if it is heard; once verse is inscribed on any material (stone or otherwise), its special status as marked discourse is necessarily lost until a viewer-reader-speaker ‘reactivates’ it by reading. This is particularly true of epigraphic verse, which is first and foremost intended to be seen as part of a monumental display. Thus ‘visual verse’ provides special challenges to scholars. · , The best modern account of the Saturnian in Italy is Mercado (2012), which provides a thorough account of all extant evidence, as well as comprehensive review of previous accounts. For purely epigraphic verse, Kruschwitz (2002) is still very useful, and for all early inscriptions (metrical or not) Wachter (19DC) is indispensable. 2 Again, this is a terrible simplification; for specifics, see Mercado. Basic introductions to Hellenizing Latin meters include Halporn et al. (19B3) and Drexler (19BC), though note that both of these predate modern prosodic theory and thus provide little explanation of prosodic phenomena. 3 , . One of the oldest (if not the oldest4 ) Latin epitaphs is that of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (CIL I.B–C).A The epitaph is in Saturnians, and verses are separated (in general) by an unusual em-dash (‘—’) mark; this epitaph provides one of our more secure Saturnian exempla. . Obviously a gross oversimplification—but bear with me. 1 There is considerable dispute about the original disposition of writing on the tomb: some was apparently painted on, and the main text of the inscription appears to have been added well after the burial, and after the erasure of an earlier (presumably simpler) inscription. The dating of this epitaph in relation to that of Barbatus’ son (CIL I.D–9) is problematic. See Gordon (19D3) and Courtney (199A) ad. loc. for discussion and bibliography. Dates for the inscription (not the tomb or burial) range from approx. 2B0 to as late as 200 . A Note that all references to CIL vol. I use the numbering of the second edition. 4 etrica . The ‘dash’ glyphs are the only signals that the verse is metrical, and the colometry is not otherwise indicated. The context for viewing/reading the verse would have been less than ideal— the tomb is dark, and the inscription is quite low to the ground. For what audience could this inscription possibly have been intended? Was its identity as verse essential to the viewing experience? . In comparison, consider the epitaph for Gaius Cornelius Scipio Hispanus (CIL I.1.1A), which (aside from the obvious difference of being in a separate burial context) is radically different from that of Barbatus.B . Most significantly, the text is in elegiac couplets rather than Saturnians,C a meter that was used extensively in Greek inscriptions and literature. The Hispanus epitaph is the earliest extant elegiac inscription in Latin. It must date after 139 , the year of Hispanus’s praetorship. . The colometry of the verses is clear, and the text displays an obvious hierarchy between prose and verse material; there is no indentation, but the elegiac schema is evident in the long-short endings on the right side of the verse. Even a casual viewer could have seen that the lower text was somehow marked. . Moreover, the actual text includes several odd forms that were archaic even in Hispanus’s time.D Thus the epitaph is metrically innovative and modern, but has many visual markers of archaism. The meter is literary and cosmopolitan,9 but the language is archaizing and traditional: the epitaph straddles the Italic and Hellenistic traditions.10 . As one would expect, the format of verse inscriptions (in general) be- comes more formalized after the end of the Republic.11 A nice example of this increasing regularity is the epitaph for Octavia Arbuscula (CIL VI.CDC2), which dates to (perhaps?) the mid-1st century . . It is also the latest and last of the metrical Scipionic epitaphs. We have three additional, earlier epitaphs in Saturnians: CIL I.D–14. C Elegiac couplets consist of a line of dactylic hexameter followed by a dactylic pentameter/hemiepes. B E.g., mieis, sibei (but with a light diphthong!), and petiei. D Ennius is reported to be the first to use both dactylic hexameter and elegiacs in Latin; the latter form occurs in his (reported) epitaphs for Scipio Africanus. 9 Note too that the epitaph ‘speaks’ in the first-person, whereas the other Scipionic epitaphs are in 2nd or 3rd person; 1stperson lapides loquentes are common in all periods of the Greek epigraphic record, and the use of the trope here may be an additional Hellenism. 10 · . ea i g The Arbuscula monument has a regular layout, excellent ordination, a clear division between prose and verse elements, distinct colometry, and clean execution. Moreover, the colometry of the verse sections is clearly influenced by the scribal (papyrological?) tradition, is it is bicolumnar has indented pentameter verses. It is possible that a nonliterate (or non-educated) viewer would have recognized these conventions as verse-markers, even if s/he could not have parsed the actual metrical schema.12 Despite the neatness of the inscription’s execution, the verses contain a number of metrical infelicities, as well as outright errors.13 Most significantly, several verses do not scan unless heavily remodeled (e.g., line 1), and line A of the second column appears to be a complete mistake, as it interrupts the regular indentation pattern (and is unmetrical). These features and the presence of several syntactic and morphological irregularities14 suggest that significantly more effort was put into the visual Another generalization: there are many exceptions and complications, of course. 11 And this is to say nothing of the actual content, which itself is interesting, both thematically and compositionally. 12 That is, according to the standards of Classical-era prestige literature; the possibility that vernacular poetry adhered to different aesthetic criteria should be kept in mind. 13 E.g., quoi for cui, agreement between verbis and acerbo, etc. 14 etrica ea i g aspects of the inscribed verses than was put into the aural features that otherwise define ‘verse’. As such, we might again ask who the intended viewer-reader of this text was—does it represent a living poetic tradition, or an attempt to signify prestige by means of purely visual markers? Was it composed by the stonemason, the dedicator, or someone else? Should we even consider it as verse, in the conventional sense? . · . A roughly contemporary but diametrically inverse situation occurs in the epitaph for Claudius Tiberinus (CIL VI.1009C), who was (he ‘tells’ us, in the 1st-person) a poet/reciter of high reputation. The epitaph is mostly verse, with only two prose lines, and the quality of the verses— both technically, and as poetry—is fairly high, with no serious metrical issues and a number of apparent literary allusions.1A However, the actual ordination of the stone is jumbled and poor: only some of the prose material is visually distinguished from the verse content, and the size of the lettershapes decreases steadily from top to bottom. The verses are initially colometroized, with separated lines and indentation of the pentameter verses, but by the 4th line of the verse (the Bth line overall) this schema is abandoned.1B . The last A lines on the stone are extremely cramped, and significantly smaller overall. Indeed, the last line (roughly the final hemistich of the final pentameter) is written on the lip of the stone.1C The declining quality of the ordination is obvious even to a casual viewer, and contrasts sharply with the quality of the poetic composition. . In fact, the confused format of the ordination completely obscures the visual identity of the verses as such. The verses thus cease to be a visual ornament, and the marked quality of this material becomes accessible only to those with the skill and the patience to read (and parse!) a significant portion of the text. . See Courtney (199A) ad loc. for discussion and specifics. 1A Presumably due to the mason’s increasing (and justified) concern that the composition, which is quite long, would not fit on the stone. 1B It seems more than likely that the composition was written separately and without consideration for the shape of the eventual monument. The stone itself is well made and has several fine carvings, which suggests that it was made by a skilled mason—it is just not suited for a text of this size. 1C · . One of the most extraordinary texts in Latin is the epitaph for Allia Potestas (CIL VI.3C9BA). The epitaph is long, mostly in verse, and thematically extraordinary.1D Dating is controversial, but the inscription is generally placed in the late 2nd century to the mid-3rd century . . The visual ordination of the inscription is very good, with clear divisions between prose and verse material: the inscription has 4 distinct sections, and the orthography in each is unique and competent, if a bit slanty. . The body of the metrical text is bicolumnar, and the verses are justified to the left of each column. The final verse of the text is thematically dis- The literature on this piece is extensive; see Gordon (19D3) ad loc. for a basic orientation on the text, but current bibliography must be found elsewhere. 1D etrica connected from the main ‘narrative’, and thus is appropriately placed in a distinct, centered location at the bottom of the stone. The colometry of the verses is consistent and presents a distinct visual impression; as with the Arbuscula epitaph above, a viewer-reader of even moderate experience could have recognized the verse portions of the text as distinct, though the exact identity of the meter would perhaps remain obscure.19 . Unlike the actual ordination of the inscription, the metrical schema and compositional features of the verse material are highly irregular. While the majority of the verses are nominally in dactylic hexameter, there are many infelicities as well as occasional pentameter and heptameter lines.20 Similarly, the final verse ‘tag’ of the inscription is an apparent elegiac couplet, though its scansion is problematic. . The body of the text also includes a number of irregular forms—often in variation with the expected Classical forms—as well as many syntactic puzzles. As with the metrical issues, it is difficult to know whether these should be categorized as solecisms, or as legitimate markers of a non-prestige sociolect. . In a text like this, which is so unique in its composition, content, and overall character, how should we interpret the representation of metrical material? Is a text of this type at all equivalent to the Scipionic epitaphs, given that it is of the same nominal ‘genre’, and shares several formal features with those epitaphia? At what point do diachronic issues become more problematic than useful? What purpose did this kind of irregular sounding but regularly represented verse serve? ea i g As with the Arbuscula inscription, the bicolumnar layout must have been influenced by the writing conventions of portable writing media, in particular papyri and wax tablets. 19 Again, one should be careful not to assume that variation of this sort is the result of ignorance or poor skill. This could be the case, but the variation could also be the result of an aesthetic tradition that follows different rules than those of the prestige tradition. 20 y Cooley, A. (2012). The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy. Courtney, E. (199A). Musa Lapidaria: a selection of Latin verse inscriptions. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. de Melo, W. (200C). Zur sprache der republikanischen Carmina Latina Epigraphica: Satzumfang, satzkomplexität und diathesenwahl. In P. Kruschwitz (Ed.), Die metrischen Inschriften der römischen Republik, pp. 9C–120. Berlin: De Gruyter. Degrassi, A. (Ed.) (19B3). Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei publicae. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Drexler, H. (19BC). Einführung in die römische Metrik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Gordon, A. E. (19D3). Illustrated introduction to Latin epigraphy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Halporn, J. W., . Ostwald, Martin, and T. G. Rosenmeyer (19B3). The meters of Greek and Latin poetry. Suffolk, Great Britain: Richard Clay & Co. Kruschwitz, P. (2002). Carmina Saturnia Epigraphica : Einleitung, Text und Kommentar zu den Saturnischen Versinschriften. Stuttgart: Steiner. Mercado, A. (2012). Italic Verse: a study of the poetic remains of Old Latin, Faliscan, and Sabellic. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Wachter, R. (19DC). Altlateinische Inschriften: sprachliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Dokumenten bis etwa 150 v. Chr. Bern: Peter Lang.