SHADOW OF A DOUBT: A PHANTOM CAESURA IN HORACE <em>ODES</em> 4.14

Abstract

In his Odes, Horace routinely places a caesura after the fifth syllable of his Alcaic hendecasyllables. Four of the exceptions to this rule have been shown to be expressive, but the fifth, at 4.14.17, has never been adequately accounted for. The expectation of such a caesura encourages the reader or listener to (mis)hear the word incerta in the phrase in certamine Martio. The shadow of this word may generate a feeling of doubt about the surrounding panegyric, or its disambiguation may dramatize the elimination of such doubt. The word incerta is also a self-reflexive signal of its own ambiguous status. n a recent article in this journal, Talbot offered a sensitive and important discussion of the expressive effects which Horace produced by his manipulation of the caesura following the fifth syllable of the Alcaic hendecasyllable, a caesura whose regularity Horace himself seems to have imposed.1 Talbot’s discussion begins with an interpretation of the handful of lines where Horace breaks his own self-imposed rule, or rather with an interpretation of most of them. He mentions “the five exceptions to the Horatian caesura rule” almost in passing and only to emphasize that two of these occur in the same ode, 1.37.2 However, he discusses only four, those at 1.16.21, 1.37.5, 1.37.14 and 2.17.21. The fifth exception, 4.14.17, he does not even cite. The reason for this is clear and entirely understandable. Talbot can offer exquisite * I am extremely grateful to CJ’s two anonymous referees, whose thoughtful and incisive comments and suggestions have considerably improved this article. I remain, of course, responsible for all its remaining shortcomings. 1 Talbot (2007). On the probable reasons for the regularization of the caesura (articulating the meter in the absence of music), see Rossi (2009) 367–71. 2 The figure of five, also given in Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) xli (with quotation of all five, though with a misprint of 4.14.7 for 4.14.17), is correct, following the usual definition of a caesura as a word-break. Mayer (2012) 147 ad 1.16.21 curiously states that “[t]he elision of –um [in aratrum] produces the regular word-break after the fifth syllable,” even though the exof exercitus is the fifth syllable, perhaps overlooking the elision of hostil(e). Putnam’s ((1986) 258) two (1.37.14 and 4.14.17) presumably excludes those with “separable” prefixes (see further below). Rossi’s ((2009) 370 n. 47) figure of three, omitting 1.37.14 and 2.17.21, is harder to account for. 3 His transition to discussion of “subtler ... encroachments”—“Those are four instances of outright violations of the Horatian caesura.” (43)—almost seems to imply that these are either the only four or four chosen from a larger sample, rather than excluding only one. I This content downloaded from 207.46.13.112 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 04:55:42 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms