Towards a Universal Definition of the Caesura Marc DOMINICY Mihai NASTA Laboratoire de Linguistique Textuelle et de Pragmatique Cognitive Université Libre de Bruxelles 1. Introduction As a first approximation, the caesura can be conceived of as a distinguished word boundary (in short : WB) whose location in the verse instance depends on the underlying pattern of the verse design. Let us consider, e.g., the case of the French Alexandrine : (1) XXXXXX XXXXXX Each verse instance that corresponds to the underlying pattern (1) contains two « subverses » ending with a « break syllable ». If lines (2-3) instantiate (1), they will respectively divide as follows : (2) (a) Je suis comme le ROI # d’un pays pluviEUX (classical) (b) Je suis comme la REI- ne # d’un pays lointain (non-classical) This allows us to define the notion of a caesura in straightforward terms :1 (3) WB #i is a caesura (in the verse instance under consideration) if, and only if : (i) #i follows the nucleus N of a non-final break syllable ; (ii) #i is not separated from N by any other WB. In the analyses given under (2), the caesura is represented by a double cross. We will call « hemistich » any sequence of words which is delimited either by one caesura and the verse beginning or end, or by two caesuras.2 Obviously, subverses and hemistichs do not necessarily coincide. In order to capture the various relations that may hold between them, we need further refinements. As a first step, we will characterize the conditions under which a WB is « associated with » a given metrical syllable in a verse instance : (4) WB #i is « associated with » metrical syllable σ (in the verse instance under consideration) if, and only if : (i) #i follows the nucleus N of σ ; (ii) #i is not separated from N by any other WB ; 3 (iii) #i is not separated from N by the nucleus of any other metrical syllable. 1 For the sake of simplicity, we will neglect the intricate problems raised by word groups that include clitics or appositives (see e.g. Devine & Stephens 1994). 2 Thus, contrary to what is suggested by etymology, a verse instance may contain more than two « hemistichs ». 3 Under certain conditions, contacts between word-final and word-initial vowels give rise either to metrical elision (i.e. to the erasure of the first vowel : V#V → Ø#V) or to metrical prodelision (i.e. to the erasure of the second vowel : V#V 2 Notice that, for a WB to be associated with a syllable, it is not required that this WB should follow the whole syllable. For example, in this dactylic hexameter :4 (5) w\ pavter hJmevtere Kronivdh, u{pate kreiovntwn (HOM. Il. VIII, 31) h ɔ| #1 pa|te|r #2 ɛ|me|te|re #3 k|kro|ni|dɛ| #4 y|pa|te #5 k|krej|jon|tɔn WBs #1, #2 and #4 are respectively associated with the syllables /ɔ/, /te/ and /dɛ/ ; as for WBs #3 and #5, they follow the final nucleus /e/ of hJmevtere or u{pate while being associated with the syllable /rek/ or /tek/ that results from the gemination of the initial /k/ of Kronivdh or kreiovntwn by virtue of regressive resyllabification (Allen 1973 : 210-220 ; Devine & Stephens 1994 : 39, 243-251 ; Dominicy 2002 : 332-334). Consequently, it is possible for a caesura to be associated with a syllable, i.e. to follow a given nucleus, without necessarily following the whole syllable under consideration ; as we will see below, WB #3 is the (« penthemimeral ») caesura of line (5). This is the reason why clause (i) of definition (4) has been formulated so as not to rule out such configurations. Definition (4) allows us to distinguish between two types of caesuras : a caesura is « synthetical » if, and only if, it is associated with the corresponding break syllable ; otherwise, it is « analytical ». For example, we have a synthetical caesura in (2a) but an analytical caesura in (2b) (Dominicy & Nasta 1993). 2. The Caesura in the Dactylic Hexameter and the Iambic Trimeter This approach runs into serious difficulties when applied to the metrical forms of Latin and Ancient Greek. Let us consider, e.g., the two major verse designs of Ancient Greek, viz. the dactylic hexameter of the Homeric corpus and the iambic trimeter of drama (tragedy or comedy). Each of them contain six feet consisting of two (metrical) positions. A position surfaces, in the verse instance, either as one syllabe — heavy (–) or light (∪) — or as a « pyrrhic » sequence of two sub-positions, i.e. two light syllables (∪∪). The possible locations of the caesura are indicated in (6-8) by double crosses whose different sizes figure the relative frequencies of the various configurations available (positions are numbered from 1 to 12, and subpositions by adding the letter « a », resp. « b », to the number of the corresponding position) : → V#Ø), so that the preference for metrical elision or prodelision will be relevant to WB associations in numerous examples. On this issue, see e.g. Descroix (1931 : 255-257) and De Neubourg (1986 : 95-96, 118-119). 4 In the phonological transcriptions of Greek, accentual diacritics are omitted and syllabic division is indicated by vertical lines. References to Greek authors and works conform to the conventions of the Liddell-Scott dictionary. 3 (6) Dactylic Hexameter (Homer) 1 2a2b 3 4a4b 5 6a 6b 7 8a8b 9 10a10b 11 12 – ∪∪ – ∪∪ – # ∪# ∪ – # ∪∪ – ∪∪ – – # – # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (a) lusovmenovı te quvgatra # fevrwn t∆ ajpereivsi∆ a[poina (HOM. Il. I, 13 ; ± 52%) – ∪∪ – ∪ ∪ – ∪ # ∪ – ∪∪ – ∪ ∪ – – (b) ajlla; kakw`ı ajfivei, # kratero;n d∆ ejpi; mu`qon e[telle (HOM. Il. I, 25 ; ± 46%) – ∪ ∪ – ∪∪ – # ∪ ∪ – ∪∪ – ∪ ∪ – – (c) ijoi`sivn te tituskovmenoi # lavessiv t∆ e[ballon (HOM. Il. III, 80 ; ± 2%) – – – ∪ ∪ – ∪∪ – # – – ∪ ∪ – – (7) Iambic Trimeter(Tragedy) 1a1b 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ∪∪ – ∪ ∪∪ ∪#∪∪ ∪#∪∪ ∪ ∪∪ ∪ – ∪ ∪∪ 1 2a2b 3 4a4b 5 6a6b 7 8a8b 9 10a10b 11 12 (a) moivraı dolwvsaı: # h/[nesan dev moi qeaiv (E. Alc. 12 ; ± 70%) – – ∪ – – # – ∪ – ∪ – ∪ – (b) tiv d∆ e[stin… wJı a[qumoı # eijselhvluqaı (S. OT 319 ; ± 30%) ∪ – ∪ – ∪ – ∪ # – ∪ – ∪ – (8) Iambic Trimeter(Comedy) 1a1b 2 3a3b 4 5a5b 6 7a7b 8 9a9b 10 11 12 ∪∪ – ∪∪ – ∪∪ – # ∪∪ – ∪∪ – ∪ – ∪ ∪∪ ∪ ∪∪ ∪# ∪∪# ∪#∪∪ ∪ ∪∪ 1 2a2b 3 4a4b 5 6a6b 7 8a8b 9 10a10b 11 12 levge nun ejmoi; qarrw`n: # ejgw; ga;r ouJtosiv (AR. Nu. 141 ; ± 13%) ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ – – – # ∪ – ∪ – ∪ – In order to rely on a precise terminology, we first have to determine the conditions under which a WB will to said to be « associated with » a given (sub)position — in short : (s)P — of the verse : (9) WB #i is « associated with » (sub)position (s)P (in the verse instance under consideration) if, and only if, #i is associated with the last syllable which (partially or totally) fills (s)P. The caesura of the dactylic hexameter is associated with P5 (« penthemimeral » caesura), P7 (« hephthemimeral » caesura) or sP5a (« trochaic » caesura).5 In the tragic trimeter, the 5 We consider (contra van Raalte 1986 : 82) that the hephthemimeral caesura, though very infrequent, was and remained easily identifiable owing to its repeated use in such specific contexts as Homeric formulaic lines (Lehrs 1882 : 387-413), oracular poems (Parke & Wormell 1956) and Orphic Hymns (Quandt 1955). 4 « penthemimeral » caesura is associated with P5 and the « hephthemimeral » caesura with P7 ; in the comic trimeter, there is a third possibility, viz. the medial caesura associated with P6. In spite of such surface variations, some data suggest that speakers perceived both the dactylic hexameter and the iambic trimeter as instantiating a complex verse design where each subverse consists of three (dactylic or iambic) feet, i.e. of three pairs SW or WS consisting of a strong and a weak position. Aristotle (Metaph. 1093a) reports that Pythagoreans analyzed the dactylic hexameter according to a 9:8 ratio, i.e. as three dactyls followed by two dactyls and a dissyllabic foot. Bassett (1916 ; 1919 : 347) correctly pointed out that this segmentation, which does not match any sensible division into surface hemistichs, cannot provide evidence in favour of standard views on the caesura. But if we assume that Pythagoreans referred to each underlying foot through its prototypical or compulsory surface realization (see 3.2, 4.1.1), we can interpret their analysis as an approximate description of an underlying verse design. Quintilian relied on the same abstract approach when he attempted to relate so-called « Sotadean » verses to dactylic hexameters or iambic trimeters with a penthemimeral caesura (Dominicy 2001 : 81-82 ; see also Dominicy 1999 : 354-355). 3. The Metrical Structure of the Dactylic Hexameter and the Iambic Trimeter These intuitions agree with Prince’s (1989) hypothesis that the caesura may not fall more than one (metrical) position from the « center » of the line. However, his theory fails to provide a clear or satisfactory account for several relevant data. 3.1. Positions and subpositions Schemes (7) and (8) indicate that, in the iambic trimeter, P6 can be filled with a pyrrhic sequence. One may wonder, then, why iambic trimeters do not allow the trochaic caesura. Prince puts forward two different explanations for this phenomenon. The first one, which goes back to Devine and Stephens (1975 : 414), relies on the tree structures assigned to the two verse designs in hand. In the dactylic hexameter, each weak position dominates two subpositions, so that each underlying foot (in short : F) includes three terminal nodes (10a) ; by contrast, the positions of the iambic trimeter are terminal nodes, so that subpositions do not appear in the underlying foot structure (10b) : (10) (a) F F S W (b) W S S W 5 The default principle of a one-to-one mapping between (sub)positions and metrical syllables is defeated in two cases : when a heavy syllable corresponds to a weak position of the dactylic hexameter (« contraction ») and when a pyrrhic sequence of two light syllables corresponds to a position of the iambic trimeter (« resolution »).