Species and sonorities of lusophone dactylic hexameters: durative, syllabic, and stress-based methods

Abstract

Taking as its general subject the adaptation of classical metres into the vernacular and as its specific subject the various Lusophone proposals for the dactylic hexameter, this study seeks to determine the similarities between each type of Lusophone hexameter and the ancient model with regard to sonority and musical effect. The methodology consisted of reviewing (a) previous inventories of Lusophone hexameters and (b) previous classifications of hexameters in stress-accent languages, so that, with support from music theory and music cognition, we could (1) reformulate the classification of hexameter adaptations; (2) analyse them in terms of the music they produce, representing this music through musical notation in both reconstructed and vernacular readings; and (3) identify the similarities and differences between each type of vernacular hexameter and the ancient form, as well as the practical difficulties involved in composition and recitation. The results yielded a classification of hexameter adaptation methods into: (1) the durative method; (2) the syllabic method; (3) the stress-based method; and (4) the ictic method, subdivided into (4.1) holodactylic, (4.2) hexapentatonic, (4.3) acephalic, and (4.4) substitutive. The present article focuses on the analysis of the quantitative, syllabic, and stress-based methods. Of these, the quantitative method most closely reproduces the ancient hexameter, though it presents the greatest practical difficulty; the syllabic method reproduces it least closely, though it is the most readily compatible with vernacular practice; between these stands the stress-based method, which aligns more closely with vernacular expectations than with the reproduction of the ancient form.