The Lyric Metres of Euripidean Drama - Universidade de Coimbra

Introduction
less felicitous effect in the strophe. This phenomenon of asymmetrical phrasing
in responding stanzas is a standard feature of practically every Aeschylean and
Euripidean song; 25 in Sophocles, on the other hand, it is seldom found.
Another interesting feature of Euripides’ technique of lyric phrasing is
the repetition of identical or similar sounds in the same metrical position in
responding stanzas, so as to give a sort of ‘mirror’ effect — as at Alc. 253~260,
for instance, where the word νεκύων occupies the same position in the
hagesichorean in both stanzas. 26 This is more readily found in Euripides’
earlier plays, where we also encounter occasional responding ‘rhyming’ effects,
as at Alc. 464 ἦ μάλ’ ἂν ~ 474 ἦ γὰρ ἂν, Med. 649 οἰκτρότατον ἀχέων ~ 658
δεινότατα παθέων, etc. 27
Finally, we may refer to another typical Euripidean mannerism: the use
of patterning word-length. Euripides had a marked penchant for grouping
together two or more tribrach shaped words (∪ ∪ ∪) in iambo-trochaic and
dochmiac lyric, often with anadiplosis or paregmenon. Among the types of
word most often found are negations in which a privative alpha is grafted on
to a disyllabic adjective; ‘second’ aorists; and plurals such as μέλεα, δάκρυα and
πάθεα. In the parodos of Helen, for example, we notice that in the antistrophe
tribrach shaped words are piled on in typical late Euripidean abundance: 180
ἔτυχον ἕλικα, 184-5 ὅμαδον ἔκλυον (~ 172-3 cύνοχα δάκρυα, | πάθεcι πάθεα,
μέλεcι μέλεα) 187 ὄρεcι † φυγάδα † (~ 175 † φόνια χάριταc †), 189 πέτρινα
γύαλα (~ 177 μέλαθρα νύχια). 28 It is curious to note that, whether by design or
25 Since it would be foolish to dogmatize on a subject as inimical to dogmatism as Greek
lyric metre, the possibility that asymmetrical phrasing in responding stanzas was used for an
expressive effect now lost on us ought perhaps not to be ruled out; but we lack the aesthetic
criteria that would enable us to analyse it objectively and, in any case, Sophocles’ avoidance of it
tells against its potential as a deliberately ‘beautifying’ device.
26 Other examples are Alc. 465a~475a ἔμοιγ’, Med. 852 φόνον ~ 862 φόνου ~ 1286 φόνωι,
Hcld. 353 ἕτεροι ~ 362 ἑτέραν, 897 τῶν ~ 906 τῶνδ’, Hi. 1120~1131 οὐκέτι, Andr. 1174 ἁμοῖc ~
1187 ἁμάν, Su. 61 χέρα θεῖναι ~ 69 χερὶ θεῖναι, 71 γόοιc ~ 79 γόων, 1000 ἐμῶν ~ 1023 ἐμᾶι, El.
729 ἀελίου ~ 739 ἀέλιον, 1212~1220 ματρὸc, Ba. 84 θεοῦ ~ 100 θεὸν, Phaeth. 230 Ἀφροδίταν
~ 239 Ἀφροδίτα. A bibliography for this phenomenon is given by Diggle (1996: 197). See also
Bond, comm. Herc., pp. 265-6; and Parker, comm. Alc., pp. 102-3.
27 Cf. also Andr. 119 Φθιάc ~ 128 Ἰλιάc, 295 λέπαc ~ 303 ἕδραc (short α in responsion with
long), Su. 1002 πυρᾶc φῶc τάφον τε ~ 1025 ἴτω φῶc γάμοι τε, Herc. 409 πολυπόταμον ~ 426
πολυδάκρυον, 763a χοροὶ χοροί ~ 772a θεοὶ θεοί, Ba. 1182 γένεθλα ~ 1198 γέγηθα, Rh. 134
μολεῖν ~ 198 πέλειν, 137 δαίεται ~ 201 φαίνεται, 460 πῶc μοι ~ 826 μή μοι.
28 Other Euripidean passages featuring sequences of two or more tribrach shaped words are
Alc. 266 μέθετε μέθετε, Med. 206 λιγυρὰ δ’ ἄχεα μογερά, 1252 κατίδετ’ ἴδετε ~ 1262 φίλιον ἔτεκεc,
1281a ἔτεκεc ἄροτον, Hcld. 95 πόλεοc ἔνεπε, Hi. 61 πότνια πότνια, 580 ἔνεπε δ’ ἔνεπε, 830 μέλεα
μέλεα ~ 848 ἔλιπεc ἔλιπεc, Andr. 491 ἄθεοc ἄνομοc ἄχαριc, 853 ἔλιπεc ἔλιπεc, Su. 919 ἔτρεφον
ἔφερον, 978 δάκρυcι νοτερόν, El. 585 ἔμολεc ἔμολεc, 1179 μυcαρὰ δίγονα ~ 1191 ἄχεα φόνια,
1209 γόνιμα μέλεα, Herc. 115 τέκεα τέκεα ~ 128 ξύνοπλα δόρατα, 131 ἴδετε πατέροc, 776 δύναcιν
ἄδικον, 919 ἔcυτο θεόθεν, 1062 ἔκανεν ἄλοχον ἔκανε, 1180 πάθεα μέλεα, 1184 ἔκανε φόνιον,
Tr. 308 ἄνεχε πάρεχε, 565 cτέφανον ἔφερεν, 1117 μέλεα πάθεα, 1217 ἔθιγεc ἔθιγεc, 1288 Κρόνιε,
29