I think I found the problem: Δίου is gen. sg. of δῖος, not of Ζεύς (the gen. of which is Διός), so the ι must be long, which means there is no synizesis. In this case, πυρὸς would be another resolution.
Yes that’s it. The longum of the first foot is resolved, as is the longum of the third. The caesura is in the third foot, as it usually is. It’s the caesura that’s the important thing; that defines the shape of the line. In this particular verse each anceps (the first element of each of the three metra) happens to be long, but that’s far less significant.
The best way to get comfortable with reading iambic trimeters is to always aim for the caesura. If it’s not directly after the 3rd-foot longum it’s almost certain to be directly after the 4th-foot longum.
The most typical caesura is after the fifth element of the verse, i.e. between the first (anceps)
and second (always long) syllables of the second metron. This is known as the ‘penthemimeral’
caesura…
It is possible, however, for the caesura to occur later in the second metron, namely after the
seventh element, i.e. between the third (always short) and fourth (always long) syllables. This is
known as the ‘hepthemimeral’ caesura.
I might have been confused by the terminology used in the article, but is the author saying that the caesura occurs either before the longum of the third foot (after the “fifth element”) or before the longum of the fourth foot (after the “seventh element”)? So, either way, the caesura would be found in the second metron. Am I understanding this correctly?
I’m very glad you caught that! I miswrote. The caesura normally comes directly after the 3rd-foot anceps, i.e. directly before the longum; failing that, directly before the 4th-foot longum. So always in the second metron, just as you say, and preceding one or other of the longa. There’s a strong inhibition against having the line split into two exact halves, i.e. directly after the third longum.
This particular line has the regular 3rd-foot caesura after Δίου (ou occupying the anceps position) but it also breaks after πυρός (a resolved longum). That is atypical.
Thank you very much for the clarification. Knowing that the caesura lies in either one of those two places has helped me hear the basic rhythm. In fact, I was able to scan and read the whole prologue of the Bacchae quite confidently. However, I think it’s best for me to leave the chorus alone for now in terms of scansion; I heard it’s extremely complex.
Another question came up as I was practising: should I insert a pause where there’s a punctuation even if it is not in one of those two places where I’d expect the caesura of the line to be? Would that be considered a “minor caesura”?
For example,
line 2 Διόνυσος, ὃν τίκτει ποθ᾽ ἡ Κάδμου κόρη (interestingly, there’s a break after the third longum in this line, too; but I think the caesura comes naturally after ποθ᾽, i.e. before the fourth longum. Do I pause after the comma?)
line 14 Φρυγῶν τε, Περσῶν θ᾽ ἡλιοβλήτους πλάκας (the caesura comes naturally after Περσῶν, but I should also pause after the comma?)
Good, I’m delighted you’re getting the hang of it!
When reading (reading aloud, that is—or even silently), I think it’s best to follow the syntax and the meter simultaneously, in other words to read it as if it were prose while at the same time hearing that it’s not (and the diction will be different too).
There’s often tension between the syntactical structure and the metrical (for example there’s always a clean metrical break at the end of each line but not necessarily a syntactical one). That’s something that makes it interesting. I wouldn’t insert pauses, unless you can do so without wrecking the line’s ongoing pulse. As with prose, the syntax alone—with or without the editorially suppled punctuation—is usually enough to show how the text articulates itself.
As to Διόνυσος, ὃν τίκτει ποθ᾽ ἡ Κάδμου κόρη, there’s no 3rd-foot caesura, as you noted, and since ποθ’ is enclitic there is actually no word break after τίκτει, i.e. we simply have a 4th-foot caesura instead of a 3rd-foot one. (Enclitics effectively belong to the word they’re appended to.) We’re free to pause momentarily before the relative clause after Διονυσος (again, just as we might in prose) but not at the expense of the felt continuity of the line.
Line 14, Φρυγῶν τε, Περσῶν θ᾽ ἡλιοβλήτους πλάκας, has the regular 3rd-foot caesura after Περσῶν θ’ (elision is no obstacle to caesura), and once again we’re free to have a momentary pause after Φρυγῶν τε in order to associate it more closely with the phrase in the previous line..
As I trust you’re finding, you get so much more out of verse if it’s read metrically!
Thank you for the notes on enclitics and elisions!
Indeed, being able to hear the way that the author meant it to sound adds a whole new dimension to the pleasure of reading. The only meter I knew before this was the dactylic hexameter, which has helped me in my Iliad and Aeneid reading groups. But I was struggling so much with iambic trimeter in my Bacchae reading group: I didn’t want to resort to disregarding the meter, but attempting it without understanding it was a torturous auditory experience. So, this thread has made a significant impact on my learning. Much appreciated!
I really want to attain the level of fluency that you described: to follow the flow of the syntax while hearing the rhythm of the meter at the same time. So far, when I read out loud, either epic or tragedy, I’ve been paying so much attention to the meter that I almost entirely neglected the meaning of the text.
I shall keep practising!
P.S.: I think Iʻve come upon the rare “caesura media”, where the caesura occurs after the third longum with an elision:
Enosh, I’ve only just seen your PS, re Bac.251, νάρθηκι βακχεύοντ’· ἀναίνομαι πάτερ. Well found! As you recognize, it’s most unusual for an iambic trimeter to have its main break at the exact halfway point (it must have been felt to be aesthetically undesirable), but when it does, there’s almost always an elision in this position, at the end of the third foot. It seems that such an elision was felt to lessen or even cancel the exceptionality.
It’s hard to know just what the phonological or perceptual reality was, or whether the sentence-end stop here facilitates the effect, but from a metrical point of view it’s almost as if βακχεύοντα were not elided at all. It’s notable that the vowels in question are both short alphas (and the resultant vowel is itself short, as the meter demands). My own suspicion is that this is a case of prodelision, erasure of the initial alpha of αναίνομαι. However that may be, it’s fair to say that what we have here is a quasi-4th-foot caesura.
Interesting!