Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:36:49.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eupolis the unruly

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

L. P. E. Parker
L. P. E. Parker
Affiliation:
St Hugh's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his excellent treatment of comic dicola, M. L. West provides a schema of the eupolidean:

adding that initial ◡◡ − theoretically admitted by the symbol o) is not actually found: ◡◡ at the beginning of either colon is always followed by ◡. At first sight, this is a mind-boggling rhythmic structure. One can make a start towards comprehension by noting that the two cola begin with aeolic base, in its Attic versio − −, − ◡, ◡ − or ◡◡◡, for which I shall here use Hermann's symbol: .. ... There is, then, no difficulty about the first half of the verse. It consists of base + − × − ◡◡ −, the colon known variously as choriambic dimeter, wilamowitzian (-us), polyschematist, anaclastic glyconic, etc. With some reluctance, I adopt ‘polyschematist’, partly on grounds of length; it is not short, but the alternatives are longer. Its close relationship with the glyconic is evident from its first appearance, which is in correspondence with glyconic in Sappho (LP 96.7).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 34 , 1988 , pp. 115 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

NOTES

1. Greek metre (1982), 95–6Google Scholar.

2. For a thorough investigation of the Attic aeolic base, see Itsumi, K., ‘The glyconic in tragedy’, CQ 34 (1984) 66–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In addition to − ◡, ◡−, −− and ◡◡◡, Itsumi finds a few examples of − ◡◡. × × will serve as a symbol for base in its original form in aeolic poetry, but the Attic version needs a symbol of its own. o o used by White and adopted by Maas for × − corresponding to − × (Greek metre (1962) §33.4) and redefined by West as ‘two positions of which at least one must be long’ is unsatisfactory. It allows too many possibilities, as the additional symbals and verbal supplement found necessary by West in his description show. It is also a confusing symbol, as Maas-Lloyd-Jones unintentionally demonstrated by misusing it in their scheme of Anacreon 54 (§33.4b).

3. On both these points, and on the polyschematist in general, see Itsumi, K., ‘The choriambic dimeter of Euripides’, CQ 32 (1982) 59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. ‘Eupolidean verse’, AJP 100 (1979) 133–4Google Scholar.

5. For other examples of bogus freedom, see Itsumi (n.3) 59 n.7, and below, p. 119.

6. Elementa doctrinae metricae (1816), 578Google Scholar. Attention to Hermann's work would have saved some more recent authorities (e.g. White and Poultney) laborious paragraphs listing the forms that are not found.

7. On dating, see especially Geissler, P., Chronologie der altattischen Komödie (1979)3Google Scholar. Fragments which can only be made into eupolideans by heavy emendation, and which are, in consequence, unusable for the purpose of this study are: Pherecrates, Kock 122, Eupolis, K.-A. 89 (here the first verse almost certainly ends − − − − − ◡, but in the second the crucial two syllables are missing), 174. In Clouds 517–62 there are no problems that affect the text for this purpose.

8. For doubts about the authorship of Πέρσαι, see Athenaeus 3.78d, 11.502a.

9. This section of the parabasis must be later than the first version of Clouds. See Dover's edition p. lxxx.

10. See Eupolis, K.-A. V, Testimonia 2aGoogle Scholar.

11. Cf. Itsumi n.3 61 n.14: ‘One might speculate that the two initial syllables of lecythion…are occasionally inverted or ‘dragged’ through the influence of the first colon’.

12. Pherecrates, Kock 13.6, 96.7 and Wasps 1460–1 = 1472–3. The latter passage poses an intractable textual problem. RV offer a corresponding text:

The two cola make up a eupolidean, in which, however, the second colon begins with the unparalleled ◡◡ −. The anomaly is easily removed from 1461, since the other MSS offer μετεβάλοντο. The gnomic aorist is certainly right, and adopting it produces a normal lecythion: . To normalize the antistrophe is, however, much more difficult. The only suggestion to have found any favour at all is Meineke's κατακομῆσαι (‘to cover with foliage’), which is not classical. Nonetheless, the metrical objection to ◡◡ −− ◡ − ◡ − is a very serious one. It is the old problem of ◡◡ − as aeolic base, supposedly exemplified by Frogs 1322 (on which see Itsumi, (n.2) 74). I.T. 1120, cited by Zimmermann, B. (Untersuchungen zur Form und Technik der aristophanischen Komödie II (1985), 161)Google Scholar will not do as a parallel, since the text is certainly corrupt, although it is curious that μεταάλλω is again involved. Even if Frogs 1322 is indeed an example of ◡◡ − as base, the purport of the passage is that this is a Euripidean metrical outrage. Aristophanes would hardly have committed it casually himself.

13. See Parker, , ‘Catalexis’, CQ 26 (1976) 14–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Soph., Ant. 109–27Google Scholar, Phil. 1143 = 1166, 1148 (in the strophe, 1124-5 is glyconic + pherecratean. The stanza ends with polyschematist + phalaecian, another way of securing the blunt/pendent contrast), Eur., Her. 797Google Scholar = 814, I.T. 437 = 455, Ion 1242–3, Hel. 1318 = 1337, I.A. 557 = 572. In a number of other passages, a sequence of polyschematists ends with glyconic + pherecratean. Outside Attic drama, the stanzas of Corinna, P.M.G. 654 col. iii are composed of four polyschematists + pherecratean.

15. Kock 79.

16. Elementa doctrinae metricae 582. See also K.-A. on Eupolis 42 and Austin, , Menandri Aspis et Samia II.83, on 476Google Scholar.

17. Cf. Archilochus, West 191 and West, , Studies in Greek elegy and iambus (1974) 135Google Scholar.

18. Commentationum de reliquiis comoediae Atticae antiquae libri duo (1838), 339 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Whittaker, M., ‘The comic fragments in their relation to the structure of Old Attic Comedy’, CQ 29 (1935) 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. For doubts about the authorship of Μεταλλῆς, see Athenaeus 15.685a.

20. It should not be deduced that the poet would have used polyschematist, glyconic and iambochoriambic dimeter, all three interchangeably, in the same passage. A prototype for this kind of combination may be Anacreon, , P.M.G. 388Google Scholar, where the tetrameters seem to have alternative first and second cola:

21. Griechische Verskunst 230.

22. See Körte, , RE xix.2Google Scholar, Nachtrag VIII.

23. On Aristophanes and Eupolis, see Halliwell, F. S., ‘Aristophanes' apprenticeship’, CQ 30 (1980) 40 n.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sommerstein, A. H., ‘Notes on Aristophanes' Knights’, CQ 30 (1980) 51 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.