The Lyric Metres of Euripidean Drama - Universidade de Coimbra

Part I - Euripides’ use of lyric metre
Compositione Verborum 11.63); more importantly, it is apparently omitted by
the Hellenistic papyrus (P. Köln 131 = 252) which is our oldest witness for this
passage. Possible incomprehension of the dochmiac monometers
54
τίθει, μὴ κτύπει ~ τίνα τύχαν εἴπω
∪ — — ∪ — δ (κτύπει Diggle: κτυπεῖτ’ Dion.: κτυπεῖτε codd.) ∪ ∪ ∪ — — — δ
may explain how the interpolation originated. 95
The fact that our manuscripts of Greek drama were copied during a period
when knowledge of lyric metre was so hazy makes it difficult to establish with
certainty the standard dochmiac lengths (if any), although editors generally
divide runs of dochmiacs in monometers and dimeters. 96 The same question
that West (1977: 89) asked of anapaestic dimeters could, of course, be asked
of dochmiac dimeters: did they really exist? Conomis, in a valuable survey of
all the dochmiac shapes of Greek tragedy, satyric drama and comedy, 97 took
the metron
x — — x —
and its 32 mathematically possible variations — rather than the dimeter
— as the basis of his inquiry. 98 There is a valid reason for doing this: a significant
percentage of the dochmiacs of Greek tragedy are self-contained units, marked
off from each other by word-end. 99 And the difficulties which would arise
by postulating dimeter and trimeter lengths (as in iambics, for instance) are
obvious. Take the following sequence from Electra (590-5):
θεὸc αὖ θεὸc ἁμετέραν τιc ἄγει ∪ ∪ — ∪ ∪ — ∪ ∪ — ∪ ∪ — ‘A’
νίκαν, ὦ φίλα. — — — ∪ —
ἄνεχε χέραc, ἄνεχε λόγον, ἵει λιτὰc ∪ ∪∪ ∪∪ ∪ ∪∪ : ∪ ∪∪ — ∪ —
95 Cf. Barrett, comm. Hi. p. 302 (on responding lyric interpolations); West, comm. Or. p.
132; Diggle (1991: 120, 132). Willink does not accept these deletions, but he admits that ‘either
μηδ’ ἔcτω κτύποc was a bad supplement (presumably in later antiquity) for a verse with too few
syllables… or an intolerably corrupt line was pruned by some ancient editor’ (comm. Or. p. 107).
96 Willink even championed the dochmiac ‘trimeter’: ‘3δ is a common length, which need
not be divided (arbitrarily) as 2δ | δ or δ | 2δ or δ | δ | δ’ (2010: 241 n. 3).
97 Conomis (1964: 23-50). For comedy, see Parker (1997: 65-9).
98 It is prima facie rather difficult to see how the hypodochmiac (— ∪ — ∪ —) and the
dochmius kaibelianus (x — ∪ — ∪ —) can be variations on x — — x —; but the fact that,
in their rare appearances, they are used as dochmiacs tells against a hypothetical (and at any
rate equally ‘abnormal’) iambic identity. West’s (1982: 110-11) Euripidean examples of a
hypodochmiac responding with a normal dochmiac (Tr. 309~326), or a kaibelianus of the
shape — ∪∪ ∪ — ∪ — in responsion with — ∪ ∪ — ∪ — at Ba. 983~1003 are based on
a corrupt text.
99 Cf. Parker (1958: 17; 1997: 65). Her percentages for self-contained dochmiacs marked off
by word-end are 72% for Aeschylus; 66% for Sophocles; and 60% for Euripides.