Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Nagy.Comparative_Studies_in_Greek_and_Indic_Meter.1974.
4. The Metrical Context of κλέοc ἄφθιτον in Epic and Lyric
As for the formula Τελαμώνιοc ἄλκιμοc Αἴαc, shared in the same position by the epic and lyric verses, I have already described its shape as pherd. [2] The question now is, did the lyric verse inherit the formula in this position, or do we see here a mere borrowing from epic verse?
Compare the following verses in Epic: {104|105}
]. ἵνα οἱ κλέοc ἄφθιτ[ον εἴη] (Hesiod fr. 70.5MW)
In terms of the reconstruction which I propose for epic hexameter, the expressions
… ἵνα οἱ κλέοc ἄφθιτον εἴη#
are formulas shaped ^pherd and pherd respectively. Notice that the epithet ἄφθιτον is shaped like a dactylic expansion, occurring between ⏑ ⏑ and – ⏓ of a partial pher segment ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓. For attestations of this segment within the larger framework of (^)pherd, consider the following:
… καὶ Τρωϊάδων κλέοc εἶναι# (Χ 514)
… ὑπουράνιον κλέοc εἴη# (Κ 212)
… ἵν’ ἄcβεcτον κλέοc εἴη#” (δ 584)
As with other formulaic segments shaped ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓, [4] the type κλέοc + ἐcτίν ́εἴή, etc. may occur not only at verse-final position but also before the trochaic caesura:
#cὸν δ’ ἤτοι κλέοc ἔcται|| … (Η 458)
#ἄcβεcτον κλέοc εἴη|| … (η 333)
#μεῖζόν κε κλέοc εἴη|| … (σ 255, τ 128)
From the internal standpoint of Epic, it seems that the type κλέοc + ἐcτίν/ἔcται/εἴή/εἶναι, shaped ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓, is more basic than the expanded type κλέοc + ἄφθιτον + ἐcτίν/εἴη, shaped ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓. Also, the expanded type is far less common. If, then, Ibykos is merely lifting expressions out of Epic in order to insert them into the ending of his pher2d meter, it seems puzzling that he should choose the less common pattern κλέοc + ἄφθιτον + ἑξεῖc, when κλέοc + ἑξεῖc could be inserted just as easily into the ending. Of course, since the κλέοc + ἄφθιτον + ἔcται of Iliad Ι 413 refers to Achilles himself, we could still counter that Ibykos was inspired by this one particular Homeric verse to coin his κλέοc + ἄφθιτον + ἑξεῖc. Such a line of argumentation is much less tenable, however, in the instance of Τελαμώνιοc ἄλκιμοc Αἴαc. The Homeric corpus features this expression in only two verses (Μ 349 = 362), both seemingly insignificant from the non-formulaic point of view, while the unexpanded equivalent, Τελαμώνιοc Αἴαc, is attested no less than 21 times in verse-final position. Are we to believe that Ibykos has here eschewed a routine epic expression and opted for a highly isolated but (for Ibykos) {106|107} insignificant variant? Even if it were so, we run into a further difficulty in his use of the word μέγαc:
In the Homeric corpus, we have twelve attestations of
besides the two of
but nothing like
which on the surface looks like a conflation of the previous two formulas. If we choose to insist that Ibykos borrowed here from Homer, we are forced to assume that he picked an extremely rare formula only to conflate it with another formula. Given the stock meanings of μέγαc and ἄλκιμοc, it hardly seems worth going to all the trouble—at least, from a post-Homeric standpoint.
– ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏔ – [κλέ̆ο̆c ἐ̄cθλό̆ν] ⏑ – ⏓ 4 times
– ⏔ – [κλέ̆ο̆c ἐ̄cθλό̆ν] ⏑ – ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏓ 5 times
In the last instance, there is a variant κλέοc εὐρύ, available for situations where the word following our expression starts with a consonant rather than vowel:
The full text reads as follows:
viśvā́yur dhehy ákṣitam
“to us fame which is wide and far
and everlasting and imperishable, grant!”
The aim of Chapter 9 is to show in detail why śrávas here is separated from ákṣitam, which occupies the last three syllables of the verse-closing. If śrávas had directly preceded ákṣitam just as κλέοc precedes ἄφθιτον, the resulting pattern
would have included a double short sequence, which is obsolescent in the Rig-Veda. [8] In line with the metrical tendency to avoid ⏑ ⏑, there is a phraseological displacement of śráva(s) ákṣitam by ákṣiti śrávas, likewise meaning ‘imperishable fame’ but containing a different and preferable rhythm: {110|111}
In the verse-closings of the Rig-Veda, śrávas always scans ⏑ – rather than ⏑ ⏑, because its position there is always preconsonantal (śrá̆vās C-), never prevocalic (śrá̆văs V- ). Thus the overall positional behavior of śrávas agrees with two Rig-Vedic metrical tendencies: (1) elimination of ⏑ ⏑ from the verse-closing, even where half of the ⏑ ⏑ was in the verse-opening; and (2) generalization of an iambic rhythm in the verse-closing, ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓. For illustration, I provide here a schema showing the patterns {111|112} of occurrence and nonoccurrence in the closing of Rig-Vedic octosyllables:
śrávas present in 7 8 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
śrávas (C-) absent in 4 5 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
śrávas (V-) absent in 4 5 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
śrávas (V-) absent in 5 6 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
śrávas (C-) absent in 6 7 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
śrávas (V-) absent in 6 7 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Note that when śrávas is in 4 5, half of it is in the closing and the other half in the opening.) In compliance with these tendencies, Rig-Veda 1.9.7 accommodates the whole expression śráva(s) ákṣitam within two metrically regular octosyllables in preference to one metrically irregular octosyllable:
I reserve the details for Part II, but the {112|113} essentials must be pointed out here. In line with the Rig–Vedic metrical tendency to generalize ⏑ ⏑ in syllables 5 6 or 6 7 of hendecasyllables, [10] śrávas in these positions is regularly prevocalic and thus scans ⏑ ⏑.
{113|114}
On the other hand, these trisyllabic forms resist the metrical tendency removing ⏑ ⏑ in 4 5, and in this respect their positional behavior is more archaic than that of disyllabic śrávas. For example, the genitive singular of máhi śrávas ‘great fame’ remains śrávasa(s) mahás, with ⏑ ⏑ in syllables 4 5 of octosyllables:
vs.
We see here the survival of a positional switch within the framework of an actual declension. The whole expression máhi śrávas is being declined, and the position of śrávas– switches back and forth from syllables 7 8 to 4 5 in the process. I argue a parallel switch of śrávas in
vs.
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓ Glyconic
For another illustration which happens to be more immediate, consider again the Rig-Vedic tendency toward generalizing long over short in syllable 4 of the Gāyatrī octosyllable. In line with this tendency, I have just argued that traditional phrases like śráva(s) ákṣitam, shaped … ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓, are likely to be leveled out by other phrases shaped … – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓, like ákṣiti śrávas.
⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑⏓ choriambic dimeter {115|116}
⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏓ iambic dimeter
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑– ⏑ ⏓ Glyconic
Notice that κλέοc ἄφθιτον would fit perfectly at the end of a Glyconic. If indeed the Greek Glyconic is related to the Indic Gāyatrī octosyllable, then we might expect the positioning of κλέοc ἄφθιτον at the end of a Glyconic, in view of the potential positioning of śráva(s) ákṣitam at the end of a Gāyatrī octosyllable. To put it another way, we might expect κλέοc ἄφθιτον and śráva(s) ákṣitam to be cognate not only in form but also in metrical context.
Failing that, the next best thing would be to find κλέοc ἄφθιτον at the end of an internally expanded Glyconic,
The latter type is not only a derivative of the plain Glyconic (gl), but also a functional variant. For example, the type gld actually alternates with plain gl in the stanzaic structure of Sappho 94LP, the poem well known for the line
which follows the pattern gl gl gld, as at lines 6 7 8: {116|117}
χαίροιc’ ἔρχεο κἄμεθεν
μέμναιc’ οἶcθα γὰρ ὤc cε πεδήπομεν
– ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓
– – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓
– – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓
By good fortune, κλέοc ἄφθιτον is actually attested in the closing of an internally expanded Glyconic
The expression occurs in a poem consisting of gl2d verses, Sappho 44LP (The Wedding of Hektor and Andromache). Line 4 reads:
– – – ⏑ ⏑ – [⏑ ⏑] – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏓
Footnotes