Plautonian Nightmare, or, Iambic Senarius Woes

Latin Learning Latin
1

Chris Omnibus S. D.

I recently bought a nice little book called the “Beginning Latin Poetry Reader,” by Gavin Betts and Daniel Franklin. It has a great selection of either short poems or exerpts from Ennius to Claudian rated according to difficulty. Though the book mentions the meter for each poem, and provides scansion of the first two lines, it says nothing about the remainder.

I recently put a post up about some difficulty I was having trying to scan the iambic senarius lines of “Lupus et Agnus” of Phaedrus. Now, I’m looking at Plautus, “Mostellaria,” 1-39. Though his use of the meter seems even more convoluted than Phaedrus’, I’ve been able to decipher most of it, though I’m incredibly confused about three lines in particular. They simply have more syllables than I know what to do with, and either I’m doing something wrong or Plautus is using iambic septenarius.

Line 29: nam ego illum corruptum duco, quom his factis studet;

I scan it (incorrectly) as:

 u  u |   -  - | -  -| -   -|-          - | -  - |  u x
 
nam eg(o) illum corruptum dūc?, qu(om) hīs factīs studet;

Line 34: Quid tibi, malum, med aut quid ego agam curatio est?

Again, my bad scansion (perhaps the worst of all. This was the most puzzling line):

  u   u u | u -  | -   - |  u  u |   u - | - -|ux

Quid tibi, malum, mēd aut quid eg(o) agam cūr?tio'st?

Finally, line 37: mei tergi facio haec, non tui fiducia.

My attempt;

 u-| -  -| u u-|  -   - | u-| - -|ux

meī tergī faci? haec, n?n tuī fīdūci?.

I am probably way off base and I’m not even certain just how faithfully Plautus means to keep to the meter. Unfortunately, the book, with its copious notes on vocabulary and grammar, says very little about the scansion of individual lines. I had thought, especially, since the book was entitled “BEGINNING Latin Poetry Reader,” I’d not have too rough a time. :blush:

Anyway, if anyone has any Plautonian insights, I’d love to hear them. The scansion is tough, but the comedy, priceless:

“Grumio: Cur me verberas?”

“Tranio: Quia vivis!”

Thanks in advance,
Chris

2

I have no insight on scansion, cdm2003, but I want to underline the connection with Samuel Beckett of your Plautian joke. I also think your thread has the best title ever, “Plautonian Nightmare, or, Iambic Senarius Woes”, but it may have scared some into their nuclear shelters.

De metro acuitatem non habeo sed, tuâ veniâ ut dicam, illo joco Plautum se demonstrare Samuelis Beckett avum esse. Titulum fili tui est omnium titulorum optimus, ut duco. Fortassè autem ille lectores quosdam territus esset ut in suffugia nuclearia issent.

3
<?xml version="1.0"?>
4

Plautine senarii are just like Phaedrus’s except that they admit of iambic shortening, sometimes called breuis breuians. They also play much faster and looser with hiatus and other licenses, but we needn’t invoke those here. Because of a deplorable lack of metrical interest and ability among students and teachers alike, far too often these things go unexplained. You are thoroughly to be commended for wanting to understand the meter.

First, iambic shortening. Very simply, it operates as follows: A long syllable (read “heavy” if so inclined), if preceded by a short syllable (again read “light” si uis), can be counted as short if the natural word accent falls on the syllable immediately preceding or following it.

A special case relevant to your first line occurs when a short monosyllabic word or an iambic disyllable with the second syllable elided changes the following long syllable into a short. In these cases the words seem to coalesce for accentual purposes.

Now down to business. Metra are marked by |, caesurae by :.

         u      u  _     _  _ | _   :  _  _             _ | _   _    u  _
na(m) eg(o) illum corruptum duco, cu(m) his factis studet

Iambic shortening in illum leads to a first foot anapaest; there are “irrational” spondees in the second and fourth feet.

   u   u u    u _ |           _  :   u   u      u  _   | _  _u_
quid tibi, malum, m(e) aut quid eg(o) agam curatio (e)st?

There is a good reason that you couldn’t scan your line: your editors printed unmetrical nonsense. Perhaps the reason that they didn’t explain iambic senarii is that they didn’t understand the meter themselves; if they did, they certainly didn’t take the trouble to scan their own printed text. Read me for med and the meter is healed. The first foot is resolved into a tribrach, the third foot into a dactyl.

  u_  _   _ |u u :     _     _    uu |_ _ u_
mei tergi faci(o) haec, non tui fiducia

The trick here is that tui undergoes iambic shortening. The rest is smooth sailing: the second foot is again an “irrational” spondee, and the fourth an “irrational” dactyl.

Does that help you?

5

Well, it’s priceless if you enjoy burlesque, pratfalls, barbed wit, and rude humor. So, yes, he’s all right wirh me. :slight_smile:

A while ago I read Plautus’s Amphitruo in W.B. Sedgwick’s excellent edition. I marked only the non-obvious longae and any peculiar accentuation, then I read it with as natural a pronunciation as I could muster. It was great fun. The meter lends itself to a quick and light recitation, and I imagine that the average Romans in the street loved their Plautus “hot and hot”, as Patrick O’Brian might say.

6

Salvete!

More than you know…I’ve now found a billion other errors I’ve made in scanning that passage and now have a better sense of what’s going on. However, I’m not sure what you mean by “irrational.” If you have a minute, could you elaborate?

There are people who don’t?? :smiley: A Plautus play is like Family Guy except 2,200 years earlier.

Thank you all, Didymus, annis, adrianus, and cantator for your insights…it’s all very much appreciated.

Best,
Chris