Does anybody know Latin poetry well?

[LordZarth]

Hey Playground! I'm wondering if there's anybody on here who can answer questions about Latin metre/poetry/language, and especially who can actually look at short lines and confirm that they work metrically.

This is because I'm trying to get the hang of writing Latin poetry. I make no claim to any artistic skill at this, or even any deep artistic motivation: I'm doing it because I'm bored, and at this point the work of simply rearranging and switching words to fit the harsh demands of metre is far outweighing any creative aspect.

But yeah, I just thought that if there were people who could be authoritative about this, they'd probably be here. Anyone?

[LordZarth]

For example, here's one line that I hope makes sense, and I hope is in dactylic hexameter. I rather expect my hopes to be dashed, but I need that.

vīva sorōrēs consūmit praedorque nam plēnus

1. As for the meaning, the second line will have "lingua" to match viva, and "numquam est" to match plenus. So the meaning is supposed to be along the lines of "The living language devours and plunders its sisters, for it is never satisfied..." (If I complete this poem, I'll be trying to compare evil "living" English with pure, sacred "dead" Latin. :smalltongue:)

2. As for the metre... Well, when I scan this I come up with a dactyl, followed by three spondees, followed by another dactyl, and completed with a spondee in anceps (long + short). Which is perfect dactylic hexameter. But uh, I'm not so confident my scansion is right.

I'm rating at about a 50% chance this board has someone who can help me, a 50% chance that a person like that would notice, and (since this is the Playground) a 75% that someone who noticed would answer, leaving us an 18.75% chance of somebody actually helping me! *crosses fingers*

Feel free to comment too if you feel like it. :smallsmile:

[LordZarth]

I've already found a scansion mistake. My fifth foot, which has to be a dactyl (long short short), was supposed to be: -dorque nam. But actually, I failed to realize that since nam was followed by plenus, the "a" vowel would be followed by "mpl", three consonants, definitely making it a long syllable and screwing up the whole metre.

I think I can fix the line by going like this:

vīva sorōrēs consūmit praedorque avidē sīc

1. Meaning-wise, this simply uses the adverb "avide", which means greedily, instead of the long phrase "nam plenus numquam est" (for it is never satisfied). However, to complete the metre of the dactylic hexameter, I've added sic, which will probably lead into a simile (sic can mean "like" or "just as").

2. Metre-wise, since "-que avide" should elide into "-quavide", we have a new fifth foot of "-dorquavi-" (-dorque avi-). The sixth foot is "-de sic", a full spondee.

Hope I didn't screw up that one...

[Kneenibble]

First of all, I offer my entire heart (from its cankerous boggy depths to its scum-skimmed surface) up to you in support for this lovely undertaking. I will help you as much as I can both as a poet and a Latin enthusiast.

I think there's a little tangle with the metre at the end of your edit:

vīva sor|ōrēs |consū|mit prae|dorque avi|dē sīc
(dactyl, spondee, spondee, spondee, dactyl, spondee)


With all the syllables that have to be long due to diphthongs and antecedent consonant clusters, you end up having the "que-av" elision on a short syllable -- which I believe is not possible; elisions must be long, am I wrong? I might be wrong. And partly then you have the adverbial ending of aviDE as a long syllable, and I believe that is always a short syllable. I might be wrong about that too.
edit I was wrong about that, my Cassell's has avide as short-short-long. I'm not sure where to confirm or deny the matter of elision though.

I love the language you're using and I love the poetic idea you're pursuing, however. All the same, I don't envy the challenge you face working with the metre. :smallsmile:

[Weezer]

I won't be able to help here, it's been too many years since I even thought about dactylic hexameter, let alone tried to figure out latin scansion, but I would like to poke my head in and say: good for you, this is a pretty cool idea. I've always liked the 'feel' of latin poetry and it's great to see someone using the structure. :smallbiggrin:

[Kneenibble]

After looking at some other verses -- for example Catullus's "odi et amo" -- I've deduced that an elision cannot always be long.

Observe:

odi et amo quare id faciam fortasse requiris

becomes

ōd'ӗt ӑ|mō quā|r'īd fӑcĭ|ām fōrt|āssӗ rӗ|quīris

You see that first elision of odi+et could not possibly be a spondee because of all the double consonants and diphthongs elsewhere in the line that proclude the extra foot it would produce. So your edit is metrically correct, congratulations.

I'll be very happy to proofread any other lines as you go! But, more importantly, am excited to read your poetry. :smallsmile:

[LordZarth]

Hey, I really appreciate both of your words! (And especially your digging and fact-checking, Kneenibble.) Anyway, I've been frighteningly unproductive with important work and instead was productive with dactylic hexameter. So, I have the following nominally complete four-line poem, which may be packed with mistakes and may make no sense and may be scanned wrong. This is partially because I'm going to bed. If anyone wants to read it over and give their opinion, that would be really cool. Without further ado, my boring first stab at Latin poetry:

vīva sorōrēs consūmit perditque avidē ista,
rēgna ferī Rōmae cūm rēliquiīs fabricant sīc.
Ō tū, pūra pudīcaque at stās, mortua numquam
tū erās. Ō mea lingua, amō nōn vīvam sed tē.

I'll leave it unscanned and untranslated for tonight, in case anyone wants a challenge? If you do, then note that I have not always elided where possible (which is allowed IIRC).

Edit: cūm is actually macronless, but the macronless version does not get past the filter.

[Kneenibble]

A couple of pickings:

- So the unelided syllable is the pudicaque at in the third line, right? I cannot recall ever seeing an unelided -que+vowel in all the poetry I've read. I don't feel comfortable with it. The other thing about that is, I've only ever seen at at the beginning of a clause.

- I believe you have too many syllables in the second line -- I can't scan it without finding seven feet.

- I am having trouble figuring how you mean regna feri Romae to work. Feri doesn't seem to fit with anything. Halp?


This is how I scan the verse (thank you for changing praedor in the first line by the way, I forgot to mention that):

vīvă sŏ|rōrēs |cōnsū|mīt pēr|dītqu'ăvĭ|d'īsta,
rēgnă fĕ|rī Rō|maē cūm |rēlī|quīīs |fābrī|cānt sīc.
Ō tū, |pūră pŭd|īcăquĕ |āt stās, |mōrtŭă |nūmquam
t'ērās. |Ō měă |līngŭ'ă|mō nōn |vīvām |sēd tē.

Other than those things: I think it's great. :smallbiggrin: I love "*** reliquiis fabricant" as a poetic image, and I like the construction of the last line "amo non vivam sed te."

[PirateMonk]

Edit: cūm is actually macronless, but the macronless version does not get past the filter.

You're allowed to evade the filter with [Color="Black"] tags if you're saying something innocuous:

vīva sorōrēs consūmit perditque avidē ista,
rēgna ferī Rōmae *** rēliquiīs fabricant sīc.
Ō tū, pūra pudīcaque at stās, mortua numquam
tū erās. Ō mea lingua, amō nōn vīvam sed tē.

Kneenibble: I think the problem in the second line is that you took *** as long and wound up with too many spondees. Isn't the fifth foot pretty much always a dactyl? Edit: And I think feri is the subject of fabricant.

rēgnă fĕ|rī Rō|maē cŭm rĕ|līquī|īs făbrĭ|cānt sīc.

LordZarth: Nice poem. How much more are you going to write?

[Kneenibble]

edit
Ah. Romae modifies reliquiis: I thought it modified regna, which was throwing off my reading. Feri is indeed the subject of fabricant, thank you. :smallredface:


I don't remember about the fifth foot. ***, however, has to be a long syllable. - two or more consonants following. So does the first syllable of fabricant for the same reason.

[PirateMonk]

edit
Ah. Romae modifies reliquiis: I thought it modified regna, which was throwing off my reading. Feri is indeed the subject of fabricant, thank you. :smallredface:


I don't remember about the fifth foot. ***, however, has to be a long syllable. - two or more consonants following. So does the first syllable of fabricant for the same reason.

Actually, the beginning of fabricant can be short:


A mute (b,c,d,g,p, or t) followed by a liquid (l or r) can count as a single consonant, as long as they are in the same word.

Source (http://www.suberic.net/~marc/scansion.html).

*** does seem unavoidably long, however.