DOI article:
Allen, Frederic D.: On Greek versification in inscriptions
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8561#0064
ON GREEK VERSIFICATION IN INSCRIPTIONS.
In this light, the usage of the inscriptions appears less surprising^
They belong with this more popular vein of poetry. The unliterary
poets — the occasional versifiers — of the fourth and succeeding cen-
turies preferred distinctly the penthemimeral form of the hexameter,
following a fashion which has left a few, but only a few, traces of
itself in our existing literature.1
It is further to be noted that the proportion of feminine caesuras
is larger in elegiac verse than in pure hexameters. The above table
shows that this is true in literature. In inscriptions the case is
thus :
Hexameters.
Elegiacs.
M.
F.
M.
F.
VI-V . .
. 28
36
VI-V .
• ■ 27
29
IV-II . .
• "4
35
IV-II .
. . 204
'51
Indeterm. .
2
Indeterm.
i
Cypriote
4
148
2
73
231
181
Ratio 100:49. Ratio 100:78.
(Whereby I have thrown out the two inscriptions in hexameters and
trimeters, and the indiscernible 'dactylic' inscriptions.) The reason
of this is not far to seek. The feminine caesura gave more variety
to elegiac verse : the penthemimeres simply duplicated the cadence
of the pentameter.
Elision in the penthemimeral caesura occurs twenty-four times.-
In the feminine caesura only twice (43, xcvn2 1. 20). The freedom
of short for long in the masculine caesura is hardly certain : see p. 74.
Shortening of a vowel before a vowel in the feminine caesura, eight
times.3 For hiatus in this part of the verse see p. 106.
1 I have noted a single instance where the trochaic caesura seems deliberately
chosen. Isyllus, xcvii, 1. 19, has \tuKo!ai Sd<pi>as, where \evKo7s Sdtpvas was
equally possible. 4 4
2 Nrs. 4, 35, 35 a add., 53, 69, 82, 85, 89, 91, 466, 484, 486, 521, 759, 773,
773 a RM, 773 b RM, 785, 856, 856a prf., 859, xxiii, xcvn2 (2 examples). A
probable example cxxn, where Cauer MeveKkea re Si. An uncertain instance,
Lvm.
3 Nrs. 63, 78, 87 (where,'however, Herwerden conjectures wapeS^aT'), 255,
768, lxvt, xcvii- (1. 68), xcviii.
In this light, the usage of the inscriptions appears less surprising^
They belong with this more popular vein of poetry. The unliterary
poets — the occasional versifiers — of the fourth and succeeding cen-
turies preferred distinctly the penthemimeral form of the hexameter,
following a fashion which has left a few, but only a few, traces of
itself in our existing literature.1
It is further to be noted that the proportion of feminine caesuras
is larger in elegiac verse than in pure hexameters. The above table
shows that this is true in literature. In inscriptions the case is
thus :
Hexameters.
Elegiacs.
M.
F.
M.
F.
VI-V . .
. 28
36
VI-V .
• ■ 27
29
IV-II . .
• "4
35
IV-II .
. . 204
'51
Indeterm. .
2
Indeterm.
i
Cypriote
4
148
2
73
231
181
Ratio 100:49. Ratio 100:78.
(Whereby I have thrown out the two inscriptions in hexameters and
trimeters, and the indiscernible 'dactylic' inscriptions.) The reason
of this is not far to seek. The feminine caesura gave more variety
to elegiac verse : the penthemimeres simply duplicated the cadence
of the pentameter.
Elision in the penthemimeral caesura occurs twenty-four times.-
In the feminine caesura only twice (43, xcvn2 1. 20). The freedom
of short for long in the masculine caesura is hardly certain : see p. 74.
Shortening of a vowel before a vowel in the feminine caesura, eight
times.3 For hiatus in this part of the verse see p. 106.
1 I have noted a single instance where the trochaic caesura seems deliberately
chosen. Isyllus, xcvii, 1. 19, has \tuKo!ai Sd<pi>as, where \evKo7s Sdtpvas was
equally possible. 4 4
2 Nrs. 4, 35, 35 a add., 53, 69, 82, 85, 89, 91, 466, 484, 486, 521, 759, 773,
773 a RM, 773 b RM, 785, 856, 856a prf., 859, xxiii, xcvn2 (2 examples). A
probable example cxxn, where Cauer MeveKkea re Si. An uncertain instance,
Lvm.
3 Nrs. 63, 78, 87 (where,'however, Herwerden conjectures wapeS^aT'), 255,
768, lxvt, xcvii- (1. 68), xcviii.