Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T20:49:08.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tradition Reshaped: Language and Style in Euripides' Medea 1-19, Ennius' Medea Exul 1-9 And Catullus 64.1-30

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Brian Arkins
Brian Arkins*
Affiliation:
University College, Galway
Get access

Extract

Language is central to homo sapiens and in literature is used in a special way to investigate the human condition. In poetry language is even more special and particular poets employ it in a highly individual fashion. ‘Style’ is the term that describes this individual use of language by a writer and style by definition implies choice: from a wide, indeed infinite number of sentences available in the language he uses, the writer selects particular sentences which best express what he wants to say. And in poetry he must also choose a particular metrical pattern into which he fits his sentences or else decide to write vers libre.

The writer's choice extends over numerous aspects of the finished work such as syntax, sound, vocabulary, metre and rhetorical figures like metaphor, metonymy and anaphora. In syntax the writer can use hypotactic or paratactic, long or short sentences and can alternate between the indicative and the subjunctive or optative moods; as regards sound he can make the words echo the sense; through his choice of vocabulary he can emphasize vital matters and adumbrate motifs central to his work; in his handling of metre the poet can use enjambment or end-stopped lines, vary the caesura and substitute long for short or vice versa; finally, the writer can employ the innumerable devices available to a self-conscious literary artist to add distinction and power to his work. A word of warning, however, Dylan Thomas rightly tells us that when all the technical aspects of a poem have been minutely analysed there is still something left that defies the scholar's annotating: the intangible, but ineluctable, impact of great poetry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , 1982 , pp. 116 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For a useful introduction to the analysis of literary style see Turner, G. W., Stylistics (Harmondsworth 1973Google Scholar); cf. also Wellek, R. and Warren, A., Theory of Literature (Harmondsworth 1970 3), 174–85Google Scholar. For a more technical, recent work see Epstein, E. L., Language and Style (London 1978Google Scholar).

2. Dylan Thomas, ‘A Few Words of a Kind’, spoken at Cambridge, Mass. March 7, 1953 and recorded on Caedmon Literary Series TCE 150.

3. For ancient views on ‘imitation’ see Russell, D. A. in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, edd. D. West and T. Woodman (Cambridge 1979), 1–16Google Scholar. For the general influence of Callimachus upon the ‘neoteric’ poets see Clausen, W., GRBS 5 (1964), 181–96Google Scholar = Approaches to Catullus, ed. Quinn, K. (Cambridge/New York 1972), 269–84Google Scholar, Lyne, R.O.A.M., CQ 28 (1978), 167–87Google Scholar. For the repetition of parvulus from Catullus 61.209 at Virgil, Aeneid 4.328 see Ferguson, J., PVS 11 (1971-72), 30, 33Google Scholar, Austin, R. G., P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Quartus (Oxford 1966Google Scholar), ad loc, and for the adaptation of Catullus 66.39 at Virgil, Aeneid 6.460, see Thornton, A. H. F., AUMLA 17 (1962), 77–79Google Scholar.

4. For a valuable bibliographical survey of Euripides see Collard, C., Euripides (Oxford 1981Google Scholar). For Medea see, e.g., Page, D. L. (ed.), Euripides Medea (Oxford 1938Google Scholar), E. Schlesinger, 7/94(1966), 26–53 = Euripides, ed. E. Segal (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1968), 70–89, Conacher, D. J., Euripidean Drama (Toronto/London 1967), 183–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Burnett, A., CPh 68 (1973), 1–24Google Scholar, Shaw, M., CPh 70 (1975), 255–66Google Scholar, Easterling, P. E., YCS 25 (1977), 177–91Google Scholar, B. Knox, ibid., 193–225, Sale, W., Existentialism and Euripides (Berwick, Vic. 1977), 13–34Google Scholar.

5. For Euripides’ prologues in general see Grube, G. M. A., The Drama of Euripides (London 1941, 1961), 63–73Google Scholar, Schmidt, H. W. in Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragoedie, ed. W. Jens (Munich 1971), 1–46Google Scholar, esp. 34–44; for useful comment on the prologue to Medea see H. Strohm, GB 6(1977), 115–19. It is worth noting the claim of ‘Euripides’ at Aristophanes, Frogs 946–47, that the first speaker in his prologues explained the nature of the play; cf: Aristotle, Rhet. 3. 1415a.

6. For the reading of lines 11–12 see Page (note 4), ad loc.

7. For grammatical parallelism see Jakobson, R., Language 42 (1966), 399–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Selected Writings III (The Hague 1981), 98–135.

8. For Medea’s imagery see Musurillo, H., S.J., , AJP 87 (1966), 66–71Google Scholar.

9. For a detailed account of Euripides’ language see Smereka, L., Studia Euripidea (Llow 1936-37Google Scholar).

10. For alliteration here see Page (note 4), ad 1; for alliteration and assonance in Greek see Denniston, J. D., Greek Prose Style (Oxford 1952), 124–39Google Scholar.

11. For the use of generative grammar in the analysis of literary style see Ohmann, R., Word 20 (1964), 423–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the articles by Thorne, J. P.: J Linguistics 1 (1965), 49 ff., 5 (1969), 147–50Google Scholar, New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. J. Lyons (Harmondsworth 1975), 185–97.

12. Ta philtata can refer to a person, alive (Sophocles, OC 1110) or dead (Sophocles, Phil. 434), as well as to a place (Euripides, Ion 287) and something abstract like the joys of love (Aeschylus, Eum. 216); cf. Page (note 4), ad loc. For abstract language in Greek see Parry, A., Yale French Studies 45 (1970), 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 12–16.

13. For the iambic trimeter metre see Maas, P., Greek Metre (Oxford 1962), 66–71Google Scholar.

14. Stinton, T. C. W., CQ 27 (1977), 71Google Scholar, gives these figures for Medea : all trimeters 1033, trimeters with enjambment 206; for enjambment involving particular types of pause see Denniston, J. D., CQ 30 (1936), 73–79Google Scholar, 192.

15. For Euripides’ use of resolution see Ceadel, E. B., CQ 35 (1941), 66–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Prato, C., QUCC 14 (1972), 73–113Google Scholar; for Aristophanes’ parody of this mannerism at Frogs 1203 see Harrison, J. E., CR 37 (1923), 10–14Google Scholar, Standord, W. B., Aristophanes — The Frogs (London 1968), ad 1202–03Google Scholar.

16. For line 1 of Medea see Verrall, A. W., CR 22 (1908), 172–75Google Scholar.

17. For early Roman tragedy see Gratwick, A. S. in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature II : Latin Literature, ed. E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen (Cambridge 1982), 127–37Google Scholar. For the fragments of Ennius’ tragedies see esp. Jocelyn, H. D., The Tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge 1969Google Scholar). He argues (pp. 342–50) that Ennius wrote two plays about Medea : Medea Exul set in Corinth and based on Euripides’ Medea, and another play set in Athens and possibly based on Euripides’ Aegeus; for text and commentary of Medea Exul see pp. 113–23 and 342–82 respectively; Jocelyn designates the opening nine lines of Medea Exul as fragment CIII.

18. For Medea Exul see Drabkin, N. L., The Medea Exul of Ennius (New York 1937Google Scholar), Monaco, G., SIFC 24 (1950), 249–53Google Scholar, Skutsch, O. in Navicula Chiloniensis, Festschrift F. Jacoby (Leiden 1956), 107–13Google Scholar = Studia Enniana (London 1968), 166–73, Zilliacus, H., Arctos 12 (1978), 167–71Google Scholar; for its dating to approximately 204 B.C. see Arcellaschi, A. in Aion. Le Temps chez les Romains (Paris 1976), 65–70Google Scholar.

19. It is worth noting that the opening lines of Medea Exul are quoted by the author of ad Herennium (2.34) as an example of vitiosa expositio quae nimium longe repetitur; a nice comment on the distinction between poetry and prose.

20. For various aspects of Ennius’ style see Gualandria, I., SCO 14 (1965), 100–19Google Scholar, Rosen, H. B., Lingua 21 (1968), 359–81Google Scholar, Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968), 684–99Google Scholar, Noulihan, M., Pallas 16 (1969), 25–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. For alliteration and assonance in Latin see Wilkinson, L. P., Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge 1963), 25–31Google Scholar.

22. For this sense of errare cf. fragment CLXXIV Joe. : animusque aeger semper errat and for a similar connotation of ‘wander’ in Engish see OED, s.v. ‘wander’, 1. 4; for this sense of saucius cf. Plautus, Persa 24–25 : saucius factus sum in Veneris proelio:/sagitta Cupido cor meum transfixit.

23. Cf. Jocelyn (note 17), 351 : ‘The dressing is typically Roman with little counterpart in Euripides’ Greek’; see also Leo, F., Plautinische Forschungen (Berlin 1912, Darmstadt 1966), 95–99Google Scholar, Williams, G. W. in OCD2 (Oxford 1970), 384Google Scholar.

24. For the Latin iambic senarius see Lindsay, W. M., Early Latin Verse (Oxford 1922), 11–112Google Scholar, 267–74, Raven, D. S., Latin Metre (London 1965), 41–59Google Scholar; for Horace’s views on the iambic senarius see Brink, C. P., Horace on Poetry — The ‘Ars Poetica’ (Cambridge 1971), 295–302Google Scholar; for Porson’s law see Allen, W. S., Accent and Rhythm (Cambridge 1973), 304–14Google Scholar.

25. For imperio regis Peliae and amore saevo see Jocelyn (note 17), 354–55 and 356 respectively.

26. For Catullus 64 see, e.g., Ramain, G., RPh 46 (1922), 135–53Google Scholar, Fr. Klingner, , SBAW (1956), 6, 1–92Google Scholar = Studien zur griechischen und roemischen Literatur (Zürich 1964), 156–224, Putnam, M. C. J., HSCP 65 (1961), 165–205Google Scholar = Quinn, Approaches (note 3), 225–65, Curran, L. C., YCS 21 (1969), 169–92Google Scholar, Harmon, D. P., Latomus 32 (1973), 311–31Google Scholar, Konstan, D., Catullus’ Indictment of Rome: The Meaning of Catullus 64 (Amsterdam 1977Google Scholar), W. V. Clausen in Cambridge History (note 17), 187–93.

27. For the happy marriage and unhappy love affair see Arkins, B., Sexuality in Catullus (Hildesheim 1982), 133–37Google Scholar and 142–52 respectively.

28. Williams (note 20), 701. For various aspects of structure and style in Poem 64 see Murley, C., TAPA 68 (1937), 305–17Google Scholar, Fordyce, C. J., Catullus — A Commentary (Oxford 1965 2), 272–76Google Scholar, Williams (note 20), 699–706, Griffiths, F. T. in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, ed. C. Deroux (Brussels 1980), 123–37Google Scholar.

29. Line 11 : for a defence of this reading see Zicari, M., Phil 105 (1961), 314–16Google Scholar = Scritti Catulliani, ed. P. Parroni (Urbino 1978), 137–39. Line 14 : for a defence of V’s feri see Puelma, M., MH 34 (1977), 156–72Google Scholar. Line 16 : Bergk’s atque haud is plausible. Lines 23–23b : the reading matrum/progenies, salvete iter was restored by Orioli from the Verona scholia on Virgil, Aeneid 5.80; Luck, G., AJP 97 (1976), 231–32Google Scholar suggests that the rest of line 23b should read iterum, vos cum love summo. Line 28 : Haupt’s Nereine is the most probable emendation of V’s nectine.

30. For sea imagery in Poem 64 see Curran (note 26), 175–78, Wolfe, R. S., S.J., , CW 62 (1969), 297–300Google Scholar; for Catullus’ borrowing from Ennius in Poem 64 of terminology relating to the sea see de Saint Denis, E., Le rôle de la mer dans la poésie latine (Paris 1935), 147–48Google Scholar, Thomas (note 35), 156–57.

31. For alliteration in Catullus see Ronconi, A., SIFC 15 (1938-39), 297–321Google Scholar, id., Studi Catulliani (Bari 1953), 9–106.

32. For repetition in Catullus see Evrard Gillis, J., La récurrence lexicale dans I’oeuvre de Catulle (Paris 1976Google Scholar).

33. For Greek words in Poem 64 and for these two hapax legomena see Fordyce (note 28), ad 64.3 and ad locc. respectively; for prognatus see Fraenkel, E., Horace (Oxford 1957), 82, n. 4Google Scholar; for the evocative use of proper names see Jr.Ross, D. O., Style and Tradition in Catullus (Cambridge, Mass. 1969), 95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. For Catullus’ use of the dactylic hexameter see Cupaiuolo, F., Studi sull’ esemetro di Catullo (Naples 1965Google Scholar); for his word-order see esp. Patzer, H., MH 12 (1955), 77–95Google Scholar = Catull, ed. R. Heine (Darmstadt 1975), 447–74, also Pearce, T. E. V., CQ 16 (1966), 140–71, 298–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for rhyme in Virgil’s hexameters see Jackson Knight, W. F., Roman Vergil (Harmondsworth 1966 2), 300–08Google Scholar. Patzer sums up (92 = 469): ‘Kurz, wir haben in ihm einen lyrischen Hexameter zu erkennen’.

35. For a valuable general survey of Catullus’ models in Poem 64 see Lafaye, G., Catulle et sesmodèles (Paris 1894), 139–95Google Scholar, and for lines 1–18 Thomas, R. F., AJP 103 (1982), 144–64Google Scholar. For specific verbal echoes of particular authors see (exercising great caution) : Ennius : Froebel, J., Ennio quid debuerit Catullus, Diss. (Weida 1910Google Scholar); Euripides : Avallone, R., Antiquitas 2–5 (1947-50), 112–83Google Scholar; Apollonius Rhodius : id., Antiquitas 8 (1953), 8–75; Theocritus : Clausen, W. V. in Cambridge History (note 17), 191, 304Google Scholar; Homer : Zetzel, J. E. G., AJP 99 (1978), 332–33Google Scholar, opposed by Thomas, R. F., AJP 100 (1979), 475–76Google Scholar; Aratus : Luck (note 29), 213–34 and Kubiak, D. B., AJP 102 (1981), 41–42Google Scholar; Euphorion : Arkins, B., LCM 4 (1979), 199–202Google Scholar and, re Poem 68, Tuplin, C. J., CQ 31 (1981), 113–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar opposed by Crowther, N. B., LCM 4 (1979), 123–25Google Scholar.

36. For this aspect of Virgil and Eliot see Jackson Knight (note 34), 99–142, and Williams, H., T. S. Eliot — The Waste Land (London 1973 2), 44–77Google Scholar respectively. See also Lee, G., Allusion, Parody and Imitation (Hull 1971Google Scholar).

37. For Ennius as a Hellenistic poet see A. S. Gratwick in Cambridge History (note 17), 66–75, and for the Callimachean dimension see Clausen (note 3), 185–87 = 273–75.

38. Note Jason’s explicit references to the story of Ariadne in Apollonius Rhodius 3.997–1004, 1096–1101; did they suggest to Catullus the choice of Ariadne as heroine rather than Medea?

39. For Catullus’ original version of the myth of Peleus and Thetis see Fordyce (note 28), ad 64.19; for his originality and his use of myth in general see Arkins, B., LCM 3 (1978), 65–69Google Scholar, and Granarolo, J., AFLNice 21 (1974), 193–230Google Scholar respectively.