The Center for Hellenic Studies

Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past

  Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Nagy.Pindars_Homer.1990.

Appendix: A Comparative Survey of Pindar’s Meters

§1. In what follows, I offer a diachronic study of the two major types of meter inherited by Pindar, the so-called Aeolic and the dactylo-epitrite. My goal is to show the affinities between these meters in Greek song and the three major types of meter in Greek poetry, namely, the dactylic hexameter, the elegiac distich, and the iambic trimeter. [1]

§2. Let us begin with a synchronic description of the Aeolic meters. [2] Both these meters and the dactylo-epitrites, which are described after the Aeolic, are built on the principle of the colon, which I define for the moment simply as a fundamental unit in the rhythmical structure of song. [3] A fundamental type of colon in the system of Aeolic meters is the so-called glyconic:




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc. [4]


Both here and in the other metrical representations that follow, I show the last syllable of a given metrical unit as uniformly long, not short. This practice reflects a principle that is at the same time metrical and linguistic: I mean the neutralization, in prepausal position (that is, in the last syllable of a {439|440} metrical unit), of the distinction between long and short in favor of long. This principle is commonly known as brevis in longo. [5]

§3. The glyconic can be internally expanded by a unit called the choriamb




– ⏑ ⏑ – = ch.


This expansion may involve one, two, or three choriambs, to form






⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc@ch [6]
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc@2ch [7]
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc@3ch. [8]


Similarly a glyconic can be internally expanded by a unit called a dactyl




– ⏑ ⏑ = da


This expansion may involve one or two dactyls, to form





⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc@da [9]
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc@2da. [10]


Now the glyconic




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc


has a catalectic variant, called the pherecratic




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pher. [11]


By catalectic and catalexis, I mean the shortening of the metrical unit by way of deleting the last syllable and making the next-to-last syllable the new brevis in longo. Using the symbol < for catalexis, I describe the pherecratic as a catalectic glyconic:

pher = glyc<.


Like the glyconic, the pherecratic can be expanded by choriambs:




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pher@2ch. [12] {440|441}


Like the glyconic, the pherecratic can be expanded by dactyls:






⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pher@da [13]
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pher@2da [14]
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pher@3da. [15]

§4. These metrical types have acephalic variants. The notions of acephalic and acephaly can be defined synchronically as the deletion of the first syllable of a given metrical line. Using the symbol > for acephaly, we may say that the glyconic has an acephalic variant known as the telesillean: [16]




⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = >glyc = tele. [17]


Also the pherecratic has an acephalic variant, conventionally called the reizianum: [18]




⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = >pher = reiz. [19]


These acephalic variants, the telesillean and the reizianum, can in turn be internally expanded by choriambs or dactyls, as in





⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = >glyc@ch = tele@ch [20]
⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = >pher@da = reiz@da. [21]

§5. So much for a synchronic description of these Aeolic meters. Turning to a diachronic perspective, I begin by observing that the mechanics just surveyed have an Indo-European provenience. [22] For example, Brent Vine has demonstrated that cognate patterns of catalexis and acephaly are at work in Indic poetics. [23] Also I have found that the relationship between glyc and glyc@ch corresponds, within the Greek evidence itself, to the relationship {441|442} between iambic dimeter and trimeter, [24] and that there is a cognate relationship between the Indic dimeter and trimeter. [25] Like the Greek dimeter, the Indic dimeter is an 8-syllable line, or a 7-syllable catalectic variant; also the Indic trimeter is a 12-syllable line, or an 11-syllable catalectic variant. [26]

§6. Let us take a closer look at the relationship between the Greek iambic dimeter and trimeter:






⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓     – ⏑ – = ia&IA iambic dimeter [27]
⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑     – ⏓ – ⏑ – = ia+ia&IA iambic trimeter
⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓     – ⏑ | – ⏓ – ⏑ – = ia&IA+IA iambic trimeter.


In this scheme the abbreviation ia stands for the iamb, ⏓ – ⏑ –, in the first four syllables, or opening, of an iambic dimeter, while IA stands for the iamb, ⏓ – ⏑ –, in the last four syllables, or closing. The sign | stands for word break, that is, word boundary, while & stands for a combination not marked by any particular pattern of word breaking. The sign + stands for the addition of an extra opening (ia) or closing (IA). [28] The distinction between opening and closing is a matter of great importance from a diachronic standpoint. The scheme ia+ia&IA of iambic trimeter stands for a diachronic pattern of opening plus opening and closing, or extra opening plus dimeter. The reflex of this 4+8 pattern of syllables in a 12-syllable line is a word break ( | ) that leaves a pattern of 5|7 syllables. Conversely the scheme ia&IA+IA of iambic trimeter stands for a diachronic pattern of opening and closing plus closing, or dimeter plus extra closing. The reflex of this 8+4 pattern of syllables in a 12-syllable line is a word break that leaves a pattern of 7|5 syllables. In other words the synchronic description of Classical iambic trimeter as having a caesura after syllable 5 or, by default, after syllable 7 corresponds to a diachronic derivation of iambic trimeter from a combination of an extra opening plus iambic dimeter or from a combination of iambic dimeter plus an extra closing, respectively. [29] We can find a cognate situation in Indic {442|443} trimeters, where we see an older pattern 4|8 being displaced by a newer pattern 5|7. [30] In early Greek trimeters, moreover, we find that the pattern 7|5 conceals further subdivision into 4|3| 5, [31] while the pattern 5|7 conceals further subdivision into 5|3|4. [32] I argue for an older pattern 4|8 (4|3|5) in old iambic trimeter, with the primary alignment of 4+3&5, which is concealed by the newer pattern 7|5 of Classical iambic trimeter, derived from a secondary alignment of 4&3+5. While the older pattern 4|8 survives in the guise of 7|5, it is at the same time superseded by the newer pattern 5|7 of Classical iambic trimeter. To repeat, 5|7 is the normal configuration of Classical iambic trimeter, while 7|5, still retaining a hidden 4|8 in older iambic trimeter, is the fallback alternative. [33]

§7. Not only iambic trimeter but also other trimeters contain constituents that are cognate with dimeters other than the iambic dimeter. For example, the element ia can combine with a dimeter shaped glyc, and here again we can observe the pattern 5|7 as an outcome:




⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ia+glyc. [34]


In such cases, however, the word breaking pattern 5|7 is just one of a variety of possibilities. To use Roman Jakobson’s useful distinction between constant and tendency, [35] the 5|7 pattern is a constant in Classical iambic trimeters shaped ia+ia&IA, but it is only a tendency in archaic trimeters shaped ia+glyc. We can apply an analogous formulation to the 7|5 pattern in Classical iambic trimeters shaped ia&IA+IA: again we see a constant, as distinct from a corresponding tendency in archaic trimeters shaped glyc+IA:




⏓ ⏓ –⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ | – ⏓ – ⏑ – = glyc+IA. [36]

§8. So far we have considered various patterns of reapplied opening and reapplied closing. But there are also situations where the opening and the closing are inverted, that is, where a closing is fused with an opening that follows. For an illustration, let us examine what can happen when two glyconics are run together: {443|444}




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc  ˜  glyc. [37]


Here I have introduced the symbol ˜ to indicate a process that can be described as dovetailing. [38] In synchronic terms, dovetailing is when the word break is skipped at the end of one metrical unit and transferred to the position after the first syllable of the following metrical unit. As I have argued at length elsewhere, [39] this process is analogous to the synchronic pattern 5|7 of iambic trimeter:




⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – = ia+ia&IA.

§9. Let us now turn from the Aeolic meters to the so-called dactylo-epitrite meters, the second of the two major metrical groupings that I have undertaken to survey. A basic unit of the dactylo-epitrite meters is the so-called prosodiakon:




⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = pros. [40]


The pros behaves like a constituent of trimeter. Let us compare the pattern traditionally known as the iambelegos:




⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = ia+pros [41]


with an iambic trimeter that has a word break after syllable 5:




⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – = ia+ia&IA


and with the trimeter formed with a glyconic, again featuring word break after syllable 5:




⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ia+glyc. [42]

§10. On the basis of such formal parallelisms in trimeter-formation, I propose that the prosodiakon (pros) is an offshoot of the Indo-European dimeter, just {444|445} like the iambic dimeter and various other octosyllabic meters that are attested in Greek lyric:





⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – = iambic dimeter (ia&IA) [43]
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyconic (glyc)


derived from a reconstructed type





⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏑ – ⏑ – = “irregular glyconic” [44]
⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = prosodiakon (pros)


derived from a reconstructed type

⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ –


as attested in the type




⏓ ⏓ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – = choriambic dimeter. [45]


Accordingly I withdraw my earlier suggestion that the prosodiakon (pros) is a resegmented derivative of the glyconic. [46] Instead I propose that both the glyconic (glyc) and the prosodiakon (pros) are independent derivatives of the Indo-European dimeter. Each Greek dimeter pattern entails various {445|446} regularizations of various rhythmical sequences, with the general direction of regularization moving from the closing toward the opening. [47] Thus the glyconic (glyc), as we see in the scheme above, is a regularization of the “irregular glyconic,” in that the fifth-from-last syllable of the “irregular glyconic” has been generalized as a short, forcing the sixth-from-last syllable to be generalized as a long to avoid a sequence of three consecutive shorts, which was not tolerated in early Greek metrics. [48] So also with the prosodiakon (pros): we could say that it is a regularization of the choriambic dimeter, with the fifth-to-last and sixth-to-last syllables generalized as two shorts, forcing the seventh-to-last to be generalized as a long to avoid a sequence of three shorts. What results is the symmetry of a rhythmical sequence

– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑,


framed at each end by one syllable of indifferent quantity (⏓). [49]

§11. Besides the various types of Greek dimeter that we have already seen resulting from various patterns of rhythmical generalization, I now list the following additional types:








– ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – – = trochaic dimeter (tr&TR) [50]
– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = trochaic-choriambic dimeter (tr’&CH) [51]
– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – = choriambic-iambic dimeter (CH&ia’) [52] {446|447}
– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = aristophanean (catalectic of above) [53]
⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = hagesichorean (hage). [54]

§12. To posit such a plurality of categories may at first strike us as unnecessary. But the necessity is indeed there: we are dealing in each case with what amounts to independent generalizations of rhythmical patterns. I can put it another way from a comparative standpoint, juxtaposing the patterns of Greek and Indic meter: while Indic versification tends to tolerate different patterns within a single given flexible meter, Greek lyric tends to generalize the corresponding patterns as a plurality of separate rigid meters. [55] Although “Greek rigidity in meter is a more advanced phenomenon than Indic flexibility,” [56] this same rigidity is what makes the internal evidence of Greek meter particularly valuable for the comparative study of Indo-European metrics: the relatively rigid and differentiated meters of Greek lyric are constants that preserve phases of evolution that have been blurred by the ongoing tendencies of the relatively flexible and undifferentiated meters of the corresponding Indic traditions. [57]

§13. This much said, the diachronic perspective can help us reduce the proliferation of categories in Greek lyric. Let us begin by considering again the glyconic (glyc) and its closest relatives:







A ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyconic (glyc)
B ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = hipponactean (hipp)
C     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = telesillean (tele)
D     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = hagesichorean (hage).


From the synchronic viewpoint of descriptive metrics, we may describe segments B, C, and D as derivatives of A: B by hypersyllabism, C by acephaly, and D by both acephaly and hypersyllabism. The diachronic point of view, however, is more subtle. First of all, let us observe that a 7-syllable unit like C is an inherited variant of A: the comparative evidence of Indic meter shows that dimeters could be 7-syllable as well as 8-syllable units, with matching rhythm in the closing. [58] Matching rhythm in the closing creates the perception of a missing initial syllable in a 7-syllable unit that coexists with an 8-syllable unit, whence the synchronic description of acephaly. But the comparative evidence makes it clear that 7-syllable units are inheritances parallel {447|448} to, not derived from, 8-syllable units. [59] It is possible to offer a similar formulation for matching rhythm in the openings of coexisting 8-syllable and 7-syllable units, also attested in Indic. [60] In this case, matching rhythm creates the perception of a missing final syllable in the 7-syllable unit, whence the synchronic description of catalexis. [61] Finally, I suggest that matching rhythm in the openings creates the perception of an added final syllable in 9-syllable units found coexisting with 8-syllable units, whence the synchronic description of hypersyllabism. [62] I cite the 9-syllable hipponactean (hipp), which functions as a dimeter in Aeolic meter. [63] Another example is the type

– ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – –, [64]


attested as a functioning variant of the type

– ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –


in compositions attributed to Alcman. [65]

§14. In light of this diachronic perspective, let us reconsider the process of dovetailing. For illustration, I turn to our earlier example of two dovetailing glyconics:




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc˜glyc. [66]


In synchronic terms dovetailing happens when the word break is skipped at the end of one metrical unit and transferred to the position after the first syllable of the following metrical unit. In diachronic terms, however, what is needed to achieve such a process of dovetailing is the systematic juxtaposition of phraseology that is rhythmically shaped hipp with phraseology that is rhythmically shaped tele in order to achieve an overall rhythmical effect that we may still describe synchronically as glyc˜glyc. In diachronic terms, then, dovetailing can evolve only in situations where the traditional repertoire features a plurality of rigid meters that allow the perception of synchronic derivation, one from the other, by way of acephaly or hypersyllabism or both. From the standpoint of the Aeolic tradition, phrases shaped hipp and tele are functional variants of phrases shaped glyc by the very fact that they are {448|449} traditionally combined to produce the sound-effect of double glyc. For this reason, we may in a given situation designate a hipp as glyc˜ and a tele as ˜glyc, provided that we have reason to think that the given phraseological repertory grew out of a system that produced the effect of dovetailing glyconics. Following this line of thinking, I henceforth use the sign ˜ before a given symbol for a given metrical unit to designate an acephalic variant of that metrical unit, while ˜ after a unit will designate a hypersyllabic variant. In other words ˜ before or after a symbol will indicate that the unit designated by that symbol evolved from traditionally dovetailed combinations. For example, ia˜ can stand for a 5-syllable unit of phraseology that has evolved in the context of a following 7-syllable unit of phraseology, as in the iambic trimeter. Conversely ˜ia&IA can stand for a 7-syllable unit of phraseology that evolved in the context of a preceding 5-syllable unit of phraseology. Henceforth I write |˜ to indicate acephaly that has been disconnected from any preceding pattern of dovetailing and ˜| to indicate hypersyllabism that has been disconnected from any following pattern of dovetailing.

§15. Keeping in mind these diachronic considerations, I am ready to streamline my system of labeling for the dovetailing variants of the Aeolic units. In what follows, the left-hand column of labels presents alternatives to the right-hand column of equivalent labels:






















A ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = glyc
B ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = glyc˜ = hipp
C     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ˜glyc = tele
D     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = ˜glyc˜ = hage
   
A ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = glyc< = pher
B none  
C     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = ˜glyc< = ˜pher = tele< = reiz
D none  
   
A     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = tele = ˜glyc above
B     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = tele˜ = hage above
C         – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ˜tele
D         – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = ˜tele˜
   
A     ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = tele< = reiz above
B none  
C     – ⏑ ⏑ – – = ˜tele< = ˜reiz
D none.  

§16. In the case of equivalences like ˜glyc = tele, what decides the description is the system of which the unit is a constituent. Let us test this principle {449|550} on some common metrical patterns in the Aeolic tradition, starting with the so-called Sapphic Strophe:






– ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = |˜ia+tele˜|
– ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = |˜ia+tele˜|
– ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = |˜ia+tele˜tele<. [67]


The primary word break pattern in the third unit is as follows:

– ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – – .


This word break reflects the evolution of the constituent phraseology in terms of tele˜tele<, as distinct from tele|tele<, which would have yielded a word break pattern that is strictly avoided by the Sapphic Strophe:

– ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – –. [68]

§17. We turn next from the Sapphic Strophe to the Alcaic:






⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ia˜tele
⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ia˜tele
⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = ia+ia˜tele˜| @da. [69]


In the third unit the strict constraint against the word breaking pattern

⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – –


reflects the dovetailing pattern ia˜tele. [70]

§18. What follows are some further examples of Aeolic combinations:






⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ia+glyc [71] {450|451}
    – ⏑ – ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = ˜ia+glyc [72]
⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – = ia+tele˜. [73]

§19. We see from the Sapphic and the Alcaic Strophe and from these other Aeolic examples that, just as a glyc allows trimeter formation with a preceding ia that dovetails into it, so also does the tele and so on. From a synchronic point of view, the tele functions as an actual alternative to the glyc, experiencing acephaly on its own like the glyc, as if for the very first time.

§20. In light of the preceding discussion of dovetailing, we are ready to survey the building blocks of the dactylo-epitrite meters. I begin by reviewing the simple trimeter pattern known as the iambelegos:




⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = ia+pros. [74]


We find also the reverse trimeter pattern in the combination known as the enkomiologikon:




– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏓ – ⏑ – – = |˜pros| ia˜|. [75]


There is also a type without initial acephaly:




⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏓ – ⏑ – – = pros| ia˜|. [76]


Moreover, there are attestations of the enkomiologikon where we see the results of dovetailing between the two units:




– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ – ⏓ = |˜pros˜| ˜ia˜|. [77]


We may note too this similar pattern:




⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ – ⏑ – – = pros˜| ˜ia&ia<. [78]

§21. Having surveyed these trimeter patterns, we now have a working repertory of the major building blocks that constitute archaic dactylo-epitrite meters, as attested most clearly in the corpus of Stesichorus: {451|452}












a ⏓ – ⏑ – = ia
b ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ = ia˜
c     – ⏑ – = ˜ia
d     – ⏑ – ⏓ = ˜ia˜
   
A ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = pros
B ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pros˜
C     – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = ˜pros
D     – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = ˜pros˜


In the dactylo-epitrites of Stesichorus, there are clear signs of parallelism in the distribution of these parallel pros and ia segments: for example, both pros˜ and ia˜ tend to be placed in the closing of metrical sequences. [79] A typical sequence is the following from the Thebaid of Stesichorus:




– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏓ – ⏑ – – = |˜pros| ia˜ = C+b. [80]


Besides trimeter formations, we also see combinations of dimeters, as in the following examples taken from the Nostoi of Stesichorus (PMG 209):





– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = |˜pros| pros˜| = C+B
– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = |˜pros˜| ˜pros˜| = B+D. [81]


Although some metricians prefer to distinguish such patterns from dactylo- epitrites by calling them dactylo-anapests, [82] I use the term dactylo-epitrite to cover both patterns.

§22. In the immediately preceding example from Stesichorus, we must take note of a metrical innovation: it is a new metrical license, not yet marked explicitly in the schemes above for the Nostoi, where one long syllable is optionally substituted for two shorts (⏔). As I have argued elsewhere, this metrical innovation, pervasive in the diction of Stesichorus, is the reflex of the Greek linguistic innovation of contracting short vowels originally separated by intervocalic *s and *i̯. [83] We must also take note of the converse of this innovation, where two short syllables are optionally substituted for one long. In the corpus of Stesichorus, this pattern of substitution is restricted to those long syllables that occur in slots that traditionally allow free {452|453} variation between a single long and a single short, as for example in the first syllable of the pros. I use the symbols A’ and B’ to reflect this metrical innovation:
















a ⏓ – ⏑ – = ia
b ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ = ia˜
c     – ⏑ – = ˜ia
d     – ⏑ – ⏓ = ˜ia˜
   
A ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = pros
A’ ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –  
A” ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –  
B ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pros˜
B’ ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –  
B” ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –  
C     – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = ˜pros
D     – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = ˜pros˜.


This innovation is attested in such compositions as the Thebaid of Stesichorus, where the pros (as also its variants) allows a new variation in the first syllable: when long, then optional two shorts instead of the single long; when short, no substitution. I draw attention to the following example:




– ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = C+B’ = |˜pros| pros˜|. [84]


The patterns symbolized by A” and B” in the scheme above reflect a further metrical innovation, attested in such compositions as the Geryoneis of Stesichorus (SLG 7-87), where the pros allows yet another new variation in the first syllable: only long, with optional two shorts instead of the single long. I cite the following example:






⏔ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pros˜| = B”
⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ” ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = reiz| pros”reiz| = reiz| A”|reiz
⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ” ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = reiz”pros˜| = reiz| B”. [85] {453|454}


I indicate with the symbol reiz the sequences ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – and ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – –, which I take to be derivatives of ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – and ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – –. As I argue presently, such sequences as ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – and ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – result from resegmentations of choriambic internal expansion. For now, however, the essential point to observe about the patterns in the scheme above is that the distinction between ⏔ as derived from the first syllable of the pros and ⏔ as derived from the double-short at syllables 3-4 and 6-7 of the pros is blurred. The resulting effect has aptly been described by one expert as a “river of dactyls.” [86]

§23. This term raises an important question: what is the etymology, as it were, of the dactyl? In our earlier survey, where the emphasis had been on the synchronic point of view, we had seen that dactyls (da = – ⏑ ⏑), like choriambs (ch = – ⏑ ⏑ –), figure in the internal expansion of patterns like the glyconic (glyc), in shapes that have been represented as glyc@ch, glyc@2ch, glyc@da, glyc@2da, and so on. But now the notion of internal expansion must be redefined from a diachronic point of view. In the case of glyc@ch and glyc@2ch, for example, the insertion of one or two choriambs (– ⏑ ⏑ – or – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ –) between the opening (⏓ ⏓) and the closing (– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –) of a glyconic (⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –) is modeled on the insertion of a choriamb (– ⏑ ⏑ –) or iamb (⏓ – ⏑ –) between the opening (– ⏑ ⏑ – or ⏓ – ⏑ –) and closing (– ⏑ ⏑ – or ⏓ – ⏑ –) of choriambic and iambic dimeter patterns. [87] In the choriambic and iambic patterns, however, what is synchronically an insertion is diachronically an opening preceded by a reapplied opening, which in turn may be preceded by yet another reapplied opening. Both the single and the double reapplied openings are attested in one particular fragment of Anacreon:





– ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – = CH+CH+CH&ia‘
– ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – = CH+CH&ia‘ +IA. [88]


The pattern of reapplied opening – ⏑ ⏑ – or openings – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – that precede – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – is reinterpreted as a pattern of opening – ⏑ ⏑ – followed by an internally expanded – ⏑ ⏑ – or – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ –. By analogy, the glyc ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –, which as we have seen is a functional variant of the choriambic-iambic dimeter – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ –, [89] becomes internally expanded as the trimeter glyc@ch and the tetrameter glyc@2ch. These trimeter and tetrameter patterns have already been described in the following way from a {454|455} synchronic point of view: the opening segment ⏓ ⏓ (“Aeolic base”) of ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – (the glyconic) is followed by an internally expanded – ⏑ ⏑ – or – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ –. Let us consider the major word break patterns in glyc@2ch:







⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X| Y| Z
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X˜Y| Z
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X| Y˜Z
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X˜Y˜Z. [90]

§24. I draw attention also to a common pattern of word breaking within sector X of the glyc@2ch:





⏓ ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – –… = X (= V| W…)…
⏓ ⏓ – | ⏑ ⏑ – –… = X (= V˜W…)…


By now we have seen not one but several dovetailing mechanisms leading to a “syncopated” – ⏑ ⏑ –, that is, ⏑ ⏑ –.

§25. Next, I draw attention to the segments that I have labeled X and X˜, ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – and ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – –, within the metrical pattern glyc@2ch. These segments are analogous to ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – and ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – –, which I have labeled with the symbol ? earlier, in the “river of dactyls” built from prosodiaka, as in the Geryoneis of Stesichorus. These patterns are followed by patterns in ⏑ ⏑ – …. We may compare the presence of “syncopated” choriambs shaped ⏑ ⏑ – in the prosodiaka of dactylo-epitrites, as clearly attested in Pindar and Bacchylides. [91]

§26. Having examined the basic configuration ⏑ ⏑ – in both the Aeolic and the dactylo-epitrite metrical traditions, we now have the background that we need for examining the phenomenon generally known as dactylic expansion, which is attested in both these traditions.

§27. Let us begin with the Aeolic metrical tradition. The XYZ components of glyc@2ch, I suggest, are cognate with those of a sequence that has earlier been described synchronically as glyc@2da, that is, a glyconic internally expanded by two dactyls. From a diachronic point of view, the expanding dactylic patterns are actually resegmented variants of choriambic patterns. In the metrical schemes that follow, I give some typical word break patterns of the type glyc@2da, [92] labeling the components marked off by the word breaks in terms of the XYZ components of glyc@2ch: {455|456}









⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X|˜Y+Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X|˜Y|˜Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = V| Z*| Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = V˜|˜Z*| Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = V˜|˜Y|˜Y˜Z = glyc@2da
etc.  


(The * following a symbol designates a sequence where the final syllable is restricted to a short quantity.) We would expect such equivalences between constituents of glyc@2ch and those of glyc@2da to be a matter of phraseological correspondences in equivalent metrical slots. [93]

§28. Let us now move from the Aeolic to the dactylo-epitrite traditions. By way of review, here are the units that we have already surveyed as the basic constituents of dactylo-epitrite meters:
















a ⏓ – ⏑ – = ia
b ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ = ia˜
c     – ⏑ – = ˜ia
d     – ⏑ – ⏓ = ˜ia˜
   
A ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = pros
A’ ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –  
A” ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –  
B ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pros˜
B’ ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –  
B” ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –  
C     – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = ˜pros
D     – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = ˜pros˜.


These units are not only prototypical of those found in the earlier dactylo- epitrite meters of Stesichorus, or the later ones of Pindar. [94] They are also identical with some of the major metrical shapes that constitute the verses of the dactylic hexameter, the elegiac distich, and the iambic trimeter. We have already observed at length the relationship of the iambic trimeter to the dactylo-epitrite meters as also to the Aeolic meters; now we may concentrate on the dactylic hexameter and the elegiac distich. The traditional {456|457} phraseology of the dactylic hexameter is distributed in such a way as to leave the following distinctive patterns of word breaking:







1. – ⏔ – ⏔ – | ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏔ – – (penthemimeral caesura)
2. – ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏑ | ⏑ – ⏔ – ⏔ – – (trochaic caesura)
3. – ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏔ – | ⏔ – ⏔ – – (hephthemimeral caesura)
4. – ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏔ – – (bucolic diaeresis).


Also, there is a constraint against word breaking of the type

– ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏑ | ⏑ – ⏔ – –.


This phenomenon is commonly known as Hermann’s Bridge. [95] Since 99% of Homeric hexameters have either pattern 1 or pattern 2, [96] we may note with interest that pattern 1 corresponds to dactylo-epitrite formations that we have already seen, of the type




– ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = C+B’ = |˜pros| pros˜|. [97]


The pattern 1 of hexameter could be described as C+B”, corresponding to the C+B’ pattern of the dactylo-epitrite meter immediately above: [98]




– ⏔ – ⏔ – | ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏔ – – = C+B” = |˜pros| pros˜|.


Similarly the so-called “pentameter” of the elegiac distich could be described as




– ⏔ – ⏔ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – = C+C = |˜pros|˜pros. [99]

§29. Pattern 4 of hexameter corresponds to a common word break pattern in Stesichorean diction:

… – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – –. [100]


Moreover, Stesichorean diction avoids word breaks of the type {457|458}

… – ⏑ | ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –,


and this pattern of avoidance is directly comparable to Hermann’s Bridge. [101] Pattern 3 of hexameter corresponds to yet another common word break pattern in Stesichorean diction:

… – | ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – –. [102] And there are even sporadic traces of pattern 2:

– ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏑ | ⏑ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – –. [103]

§30. Even though these analogues in Stesichorean meter yield examples of all four major types of word breaking pattern in the hexameter, we still cannot say that the hexameter is attested in Stesichorus. In the meters of Stesichorus, a pattern like

– ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏔ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – –,


which looks on the surface exactly like the hexameter, is a functional equivalence of

– ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – –.


Here the sequence – ⏓ – is incompatible with the hexameter, which regularly avoids the dactyl-thwarting pattern – ⏑ –. [104] For example, let us consider the following match: [105]

Κάστορί] θ’ ἱπποδάμῳ καὶ π[ὺξ ἀγαθῷ Πολυδεύκει

Stesichorus Oxyrhynchus Papyri 2735.17

§31. Thus there is a greater variety of phraseology accommodated by the meters of Stesichorus than by the hexameter of Homer. [108]

§32. How does the dactylic hexameter maintain its frame while promoting dactylic rhythm? The answer has to do with the phraseological heritage of the hexameter. The phraseology that constitutes the repertoire of hexameter, I submit, comes from the rhythmical frame of not only the dactylo-epitrite but also the Aeolic meters.

§33. In an earlier attempt, [109] I had argued that the framework of hexameter can be derived from an Aeolic meter:




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – = pher@3da. [110]


In two later works, I went beyond my specific argument that the pher@3da provided the actual metrical frame for the hexameter, offering the more general argument that the hexameter was shaped by the same traditional phraseology that had shaped not only such Aeolic meters as pher@3da, glyc@2ch, glyc@2da but also the dactylo-epitrite meters. [111] In this book, this {459|460} same general argument has been reinforced with the preceding discussion of inner expansion by dactyls, explained as a derivative of inner expansion by choriambs.

§34. For inherited phraseology to be interchangeable between hexameter on one side and such meters as the pher@3da, glyc@2ch, and glyc@2da on the other, I posit two innovations on the Aeolic side, taking as an example the metrical frame of pher @3 da:

  1. optional replacement of – ⏑ ⏑ by – – [112]

  2. specialization of the initial “Aeolic base” ⏓ ⏓ as – –, with optional replacement of – – by – ⏑ ⏑.


These innovations would be parallel to those already discussed in the case of the archaic dactylo-epitrites of Stesichorus:

  1. optional replacement of – ⏑ ⏑ by – –

  2. specialization of the initial ⏓ as –, with optional replacement of – by ⏑ ⏑. [113]


The optional synchronic substitution of – – for – ⏑ ⏑ can be explained as a diachronic reflex of vowel-contraction. [114] The substitution of – – for – ⏑ ⏑ accords with the theory that phraseological patterns generate metrical patterns that then assume dynamics of their own and even regulate any incoming nontraditional phraseology. [115] There is internal evidence to show that the pattern – – is foreign to the second, third, fourth, and fifth feet of the dactylic hexameter since it involves phraseological restrictions that do not apply to the pattern – ⏑ ⏑: words with a spondaic ending are shunned, whereas those with a dactylic ending are not. In the first foot of the hexameter, on the other hand, this restriction does not apply, and words with a spondaic ending are {460|461} common. [116] It bears repeating that the optional substitution of – ⏑ ⏑ for – – in the first foot of hexameter could not have happened without a preexistent pattern of optionally substituting – – for – ⏑ ⏑ in the other feet. Then too, in a composition like the Geryoneis of Stesichorus, where we find no Aeolic base analogous to the first foot of hexameter, we note that phrases containing the shape – – can be substituted for those containing the shape – ⏑ ⏑ but not the other way around. [117] Further, as in hexameter, any sequence shaped – – that is substituted for – ⏑ ⏑ regularly avoids a following word end; instead, the word ending is bridged to the position after the next long syllable. [118]

§35. We are ready to examine examples of phraseological interchange between hexameter and the Aeolic meters. Let us begin with an Aeolic pattern that we have already considered in detail, the glyc@2ch:







⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X| Y| Z = glyc@2ch
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X˜Y| Z = glyc@2ch
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X| Y˜Z = glyc@2ch
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X˜Y˜Z = glyc@2ch [119]


Let us consider where these shapes could fit within the framework of a pher@3da. Again the * following a symbol designates a sequence where the final syllable is restricted to a short quantity: {461|462}




⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – |⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – – = X|˜Z*| Y˜|. [120]


Keeping in mind the posited innovation of replacing initial ⏓ ⏓ with – ⏑ ⏑, we find that the hexameter actually accommodates phraseology corresponding to the glyc@2ch in exactly these slots:




– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – – = X|˜Z*| Y˜|.


As a case in point, I cite the hexameters in Hesiod Works and Days 582-593 and Shield of Herakles 393-401, to be compared with the stichic series of glyc@2ch in Alcaeus F 347. To indicate the relative metrical position of the phraseology, I propose to use the symbols # for line-initial and line-final position, 1 2 3 4 for the relevant caesuras of hexameter, and A B C D for those of the glyc@2ch:









# – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ | ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – – #
                1   2     3     4            

= hexameter





# ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | – | ⏑ ⏑ – | – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – #
              A   B       C   D            

= glyc@2ch.


Let us proceed to examine the following correspondences:









⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | – ⏑ ⏑ – – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –
            A           D          

= X| Y˜Z = glyc@2ch





– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – –
              1           4          

= X|˜Z*| Y˜| = hexameter

# … δὲ σκόλυμος| A (sector X|) in Alcaeus v. 7 corresponds to # … δὲ σκόλυμος τ’| 1 in Works 582. A| ἄδεα τέττιξ| D (sector | Y˜|) in Alcaeus v. 3 corresponds to 4| ἠχέτα τέττιξ# in Works 582 and Shield 393. # … ὐπὰ καύματος# (sector |˜Z*| ) in Alcaeus v. 2 corresponds to 1| ὑπὸ καύματος| 4 in Works 588. [121] {462|463}


Now let us consider again the glyc@2da:









⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X|˜Y+Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X|˜Y|˜Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = V| Z*| Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = V˜|˜Z*| Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = V˜|˜Y|˜Y˜Z = glyc@2da
etc.  


Again we find that the hexameter actually accommodates phraseology corresponding to what we find in the glyc@2da, as with the placement of wording shaped |˜Z* at the middle of the hexameter:




– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – – = X|˜Z*| Y˜|. [122]


There is an interesting alternative pattern, where wording shaped ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – at the end of hexameter corresponds to wording shaped |˜Z*| at the end of one glyc@2da followed by wording that occupies the Aeolic base in a consecutive glyc@2da:






⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – = X|˜Y|˜Z = glyc@2da
⏓ ⏓ | … = V| …
– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – – = X|˜Y|˜Z*| V = hexameter. [123]


The same phenomenon occurs in wording shaped |˜Z*| at the end of one glyc@2ch followed by wording that occupies the Aeolic base in a consecutive glyc@2ch. [124] Even more common in hexameter is wording shaped for {463|464} pher sequences, which can be described as pher* followed by *˜pher@da. [125]

§36. It is important to stress in passing that, just as Aeolic meters influence each other, we can expect hexameter, even if it is partially inherited from Aeolic meters, also to influence them.

Footnotes

[ back ] 1. Earlier versions of this argument appeared in N 1979b and 1983c.

[ back ] 2. The following symbols are henceforth in effect: – = long syllable; ⏑ = short; ⏓ = anceps = long or short; ⏔ = long or two shorts; ⏔̆ = anceps or two shorts.

[ back ] 3. For more on the term colon: West 1982.5-6.

[ back ] 4. For example, Sappho F 96. In this chapter, all fragments of Sappho and Alcaeus are taken from the edition of Voigt (V). The metrical abbreviations, such as glyc for glyconic, are modifications of those found in West 1982, whose taxonomy of Greek meters I follow here, with some exceptions as noted.

[ back ] 5. See the discussion of Devine and Stephens 1975, especially p. 204.

[ back ] 6. For example, Alcaeus F 112.

[ back ] 7. For example, Alcaeus F 343.

[ back ] 8. For example, Alcaeus F 387.

[ back ] 9. For example, Sappho F 94.

[ back ] 10. For example, Sappho F 44.

[ back ] 11. For example, Sappho F 111.1.

[ back ] 12. For example, Sappho F 140. I had neglected this poem in N 1974.47, where I claim wrongly that there are no pherecratics to be found with choriambic expansion.

[ back ] 13. For example, Sappho F 110.

[ back ] 14. For example, Sappho F 115.

[ back ] 15. For example, Alcaeus F 368.

[ back ] 16. For the terminology, see West 1982.30.

[ back ] 17. For example, Alcaeus F 303.

[ back ] 18. Ibid. On the history of the term, see Gentili and Giannini 1977.11-I2n8.

[ back ] 19. For example, Sappho 141.

[ back ] 20. For example, Alcaeus F 130.4.

[ back ] 21. For example, Sappho F 111.3.

[ back ] 22. Concerning the Indo-European heritage of Greek meters in general, I cite the pioneering studies of Meillet 1923, Jakobson 1952, and Watkins 1963. Cf. also Schmitt 1967.307-313, West 1973, 1973b, N 1974. For a survey of these works and others (such as Peabody 1975 and Vigorita 1977), see Bowie 1981.16-28. Commenting on the view of Meillet, p. 76, that the Indic and Greek correspondences in metrical patterns are too close to be coincidental, Bake 1957.195 observes that this view “is equally applicable when comparing the systems of music of the two ancient civilizations.”

[ back ] 23. Cf. Vine 1977, 1978.

[ back ] 24. N 1974.37-44. Similarly the relationship between glyc and glyc@2ch would correspond to the relationship between iambic dimeter and iambic tetrameter.

[ back ] 25. Ibid.

[ back ] 26. Ibid; also Vine 1977 and 1978. Cf. also Ananthanarayana 1973, who argues that trimeter is derived from dimeter and who posits for trimeter a basic 11-syllable unit and a derived 12-syllable unit; as the discussion proceeds, it will be clear that I disagree with the latter point and only partially agree with the former.

[ back ] 27. For example, Anacreon PMG 428.

[ back ] 28. In the present work, I have tried to be consistent in using four-letter symbols for whole dimeters (e.g. glyc) and two-letter symbols for openings or closings of dimeters and trimeters (e.g. ia, ch).

[ back ] 29. N 1974.37-44, 279-287; skepticism in West 1974.458, but tentative agreement in West 1982b.296n45. All this is not to say, however, that the dimeter is necessarily older than the trimeter (see the useful discussion of Vine 1978.175 and 191n7). It is only to say that the constituents of trimeter are cognate with the constituents of dimeter, and that we can therefore explain the trimeter in terms of the same constituents that we find in dimeter.

[ back ] 30. N ibid. Cf. West 1982b.295.

[ back ] 31. For example, Semonides F 7.12 W; Margites F 1 Allen, p. 156.

[ back ] 32. For example, Semonides F 7.3 W. Discussion in N 1974.292-293.

[ back ] 33. For statistics on primary 5|7 and secondary 7|5 patterns in iambic trimeter, see Korzeniewski 1968.45-46.

[ back ] 34. For example, Alcaeus F 70 and 117b.26 ff. (where the strophe is shaped ia + glyc | glyc@ch).

[ back ] 35. Jakobson 1952 passim.

[ back ] 36. For example, Alcaeus F 355 and F 360, which show this word break pattern, as opposed to, e.g., F 359, which does not.

[ back ] 37. For example, Alcaeus F 630; Bacchylides 18.9 SM.

[ back ] 38. For the term dovetailing, borrowed from the image of a dovetail joint in carpentry (so West 1982b.295), see Maas 1962.44.

[ back ] 39. N 1974.279-287.

[ back ] 40. For example, Stesichorus Thebaid 222 (strophe/antistrophe line 5). I refer to the version of the text (Lille Papyri 76abc) published by Haslam 1978.32-33, with accompanying metrical analysis. On the general subject of Stesichorean meter, the work of Haslam 1974, 1978 is essential; for important parallels illustrated by poetry that is attested in the surviving epigraphical evidence, see Gentili and Giannini 1977.19-22. On the interchangeability of ⏓ and ⏔ in Stesichorean meter, see pp. 451 and following.

[ back ] 41. For example, Stesichorus Destruction of Ilion (SLG 88-132) epode lines 6-7 in the colometry of Haslam 1978.

[ back ] 42. For example, again, Alcaeus F 70 and 117b.24 ff. (where the strophe is shaped ia+glyc | glyc@ch).

[ back ] 43. For example, Anacreon PMG 428.

[ back ] 44. I say “reconstructed” because actual attestations of initial ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ reveal distinct trends of patterning, not completely free variation. One such pattern is initial – ⏑ ⏑ – instead of the initial ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ of glyconic. For example, Sappho F 95.6, where – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – functions as a variant of ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – (cf. West 1982.31). For the term irregular glyconic, see Watkins 1963.203-206. Correcting some of the scansions offered by Watkins, Itsumi 1982.59n7 says that “Watkins is rash to find in Greek metres traces of initial unfixed syllables supposedly of Indo-European origin.” Yet Itsumi has not disproved the existence of these traces; he has simply shown that an initial configuration is not attested in all the possible varieties that are expected on the basis of the comparative evidence. Cf. p. 7.

[ back ] 45. On the restriction of the initial pattern ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ to ⏓ ⏓ – ⏓ in choriambic dimeter, see p. 7. The choriambic dimeter is most clearly attested in Anacreon PMG 349, 357; Corinna PMG 654, 655; Aristophanes Wasps 1457-1461, 1469-1473; Clouds 572. See also Merkelbach 1967.161-162, who has identified twelve consecutive lines of choriambic dimeter verse in a fragment of what seems to be the parabasis of the Heroes of Aristophanes. The choriambic dimeter is also found as the first part of a larger unit known as the Eupolidean verse, as most clearly attested in the parabasis of Aristophanes’ Clouds (518-562). On the recitative (as opposed to sung) character of the Eupolidean verse, of which the choriambic dimeter is a constituent, see Poultney, pp. 140-141. For more on the choriambic dimeter, see Poultney 1979.142-144. Also Itsumi 1982 (who cites neither Merkelbach nor Poultney). This metrical unit has already been discussed at p. 6. The choriambic dimeter and the glyconic are functional variants in strophic responsion (cf. Itsumi, pp. 59, 69). On the principles of strophic responsion, see West 1982.5.

[ back ] 46. N 1974.294-295.

[ back ] 47. Watkins 1963.203-206; cf. N 1974.30-31.

[ back ] 48. Ibid. That the early Greek metrical law of avoiding three consecutive shorts was an outgrowth of the language itself is suggested by a residual phonological rule in classical Greek, surviving on the level of morphophonemics: I am referring to the constraint against three consecutive short syllables in comparatives and superlatives of thematic adjectives: thus, e.g., soph-ō-teros as opposed to lept-o-teros. See Householder and Nagy 1972.758.

[ back ] 49. To repeat, the last syllable of a line is indifferent in quantity, even though I have been writing it as a long (–). See p. 439.

[ back ] 50. For example, Anacreon PMG 347, 417. See West 1982.57. The metrical tendencies that led to this pattern are cognate with those that led to the Indic dimeter shaped ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ – – and known as the trochaic Gāyatrī (on which see Vine 1977.250; cf. N 1974.170-171).

[ back ] 51. For example, Sappho F 95.9, 96.7. West 1982.31 recognizes this unit as a variant of the glyc; it is interchangeable with glyc in, e.g., Anacreon PMG 349 (see West, p. 57). It can be interpreted as a derivative of the choriambic dimeter. Henceforth, the symbol tr’&CH will indicate this particular variant dimeter.

[ back ] 52. For example, Sappho F 95.6. West ibid. recognizes this unit too as a variant of the glyc. It is clearly a derivative of the “irregular glyconic.” Whereas the glyc generalizes the pattern long-short for the third and fourth syllables of the opening, resulting in ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑, the unit under consideration generalizes the pattern short-long, for the third and fourth and long-short for the first and second, resulting in – ⏑ ⏑ –. Whereas the pattern long-short for the first and second is a constant for this unit, the same pattern is only a tendency for the glyc (cf. West 1982.30). Henceforth, the symbol CH&ia’ will indicate this particular variant dimeter.

[ back ] 53. For example, Sappho F 112; Anacreon PMG 385, 386.

[ back ] 54. For example, Alcman PMG 1.57. For the name, see West 1982.30n3.

[ back ] 55. N 1974.34, with illustrations.

[ back ] 56. N, p. 35.

[ back ] 57. N, p. 36, with illustrations. I say “relatively rigid” in describing the meters of Greek lyric because the meters of Greek nonlyric, as we shall see presently, are even more rigid.

[ back ] 58. Vine 1977.

[ back ] 59. Ibid.

[ back ] 60. For which see again Vine ibid.

[ back ] 61. In this connection, I disagree with the interpretation offered by Ritoók 1987.11n35 concerning Vine’s analysis. What Vine is saying is that, whereas most Vedic heptasyllables can be described catalectic, a small residue, hitherto treated as metrical anomalies, are acephalic.

[ back ] 62. This discussion has been enhanced by the perspectives of Cole 1988.

[ back ] 63. For example, Alcaeus F 130.

[ back ] 64. As we see below, the pattern – ⏔ is a reflex of ⏓ ⏓.

[ back ] 65. For example, Alcman PMG 1.49 (first type) and 1.35 (second type); cf. also the 9-syllable line in Alcman PMG 39.1.

[ back ] 66. For example, again, Alcaeus F 360; Bacchylides 18.9 SM.

[ back ] 67. The Sapphic Strophe is the format, for example, of all the compositions in Sappho Book I.

[ back ] 68. In his synchronic metrical description, West 1982.33 provides the following interpretation of the Sapphic Strophe. For the first two units, he posits >ia+hage. For the third, he hesitates between >ia+hage+adon or >ia+tele˜reiz. Either way, there is a discontinuity with the first two units. To posit an adonic (adon, or – ⏑ ⏑ – –) is to invoke a segmentation for which I know of no diachronic explanation. To posit tele clashes with the preceding hage. About his schematization of the third unit, West remarks (ibid.) that it “obscures the essential point that it is a distended form of the first and second.” I hope that the schematization that I offer above helps establish that point.

[ back ] 69. For the Alcaic Strophe, see, e.g., Alcaeus F 129. Again, West (ibid.) notes that the third unit is an “amplification” of the first and second.

[ back ] 70. In the first two units, as West 1982b.296 points out, the word break predominantly occurs at ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –. Again, a reflex of ia˜tele. There is an analogous type of trimeter in the Indic tradition, known as the Bhārgavā: see N 1974.180-183.

[ back ] 71. For example, again, Alcaeus F 70 and 117b.24 ff. (where the strophe is shaped ia+glyc| glyc@ch).

[ back ] 72. For example, Sappho F 98 (where the strophe is shaped glyc| glyc| ˜ia+glyc). I write ˜ia+glyc instead of ˜ia˜glyc because the word break does not necessarily occur after syllable 4.

[ back ] 73. For example, Alcaeus F 384.

[ back ] 74. For example, Stesichorus Destruction of Ilion (SLG 88-132) epode lines 6-7 in the colometry of Haslam 1978.

[ back ] 75. For example, Stesichorus Thebaid strophe/antistrophe line 2.

[ back ] 76. For example, Stesichorus Thebaid epode line 2.

[ back ] 77. For example, Anacreon PMG 416.

[ back ] 78. For example, Archilochus F 168-171 W.

[ back ] 79. Cf. Haslam 1978.56.

[ back ] 80. For example, Stesichorus Thebaid strophe/antistrophe line 2; also Alcaeus F 383.

[ back ] 81. Cf. Haslam 1974.46.

[ back ] 82. For example, Haslam 1978.

[ back ] 83. N 1974.49-56. Also Allen 1973.255-259 and 1987.113-114.

[ back ] 84. For example, Stesichorus Thebaid strophe/antistrophe line 1, as analyzed by Haslam 1978.33. This variation (when long, then optional two shorts instead of the single long; when short, no substitution) in the first syllable of pros is analogously extended to the first syllable in the ia segments as well, as in the Thebaid strophe/antistrophe line 5.

[ back ] 85. For example, Stesichorus Geryoneis (SLG 7-87) strophe/antistrophe lines 1-5, as analyzed by Haslam 1974.20-22, 31; cf. West 1982.50. Henceforth, the symbol ” indicates optional word break.

[ back ] 86. Haslam 1974.32n50.

[ back ] 87. Examples and discussion in N 1974.39-45 (though I now distance myself from the overrestricted usage there of the terms symmetry and asymmetry).

[ back ] 88. Anacreon PMG 388. The pattern CH&ia‘ in these combinations is cognate with the choriambic-iambic dimeter (– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ –), a unit that functions as a variant of the glyconic. See p. 446.

[ back ] 89. See p. 446.

[ back ] 90. The Aeolic samples of glyc@2ch that I have examined are: Alcaeus F 44, 50, 115a; 296b, 340-349; cf. Theocritus 28, 30 Gow and Callimachus F 400 Pfeiffer.

[ back ] 91. There is an inventory of attestations in the SM edition of Pindaric fragments, p. 168, and in the SM edition of Bacchylides, p. xxvii; the sequence ⏑ ⏑ – is labeled “d2”.

[ back ] 92. I follow the statistics on word breaking in glyc@2da as compiled by Bowie 1981.35 on the basis of the following texts: Sappho F 44.5-15, 26, 30-34; 47.2,48-52; Alcaeus F 38.3-5, 7, 9; 141.3-4; 364; 365.

[ back ] 93. This is not to say that glyc@2da cannot be a metrical frame for shapes other than what we find in glyc@2ch: for example, we may analyze Sappho F 44.10 as containing phraseology shaped pher* followed by ˜*glyc.

[ back ] 94. For a useful survey of dactylo-epitrite patterns in Stesichorus, Pindar, and Bacchylides, see Haslam 1978.54-57. My one basic disagreement with Haslam is that I view the pattern ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – as more archaic than ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –.

[ back ] 95. Maas 1962.60. In N 1974.72, “.01%.” should read “0.1%.” On the special effects achieved by the violation of Hermann’s Bridge in Hesiod Theogony 319, see Solomon 1985.

[ back ] 96. Cf. N 1974.56; roughly 60% have pattern 4.

[ back ] 97. For example, Stesichorus Thebaid strophe/antistrophe line 1.

[ back ] 98. Cf. West 1973b.269; Gentili and Giannini 1977.28; Haslam 1978.39-40.

[ back ] 99. In line with my argument that the closing of the “pentameter” is particularly archaic (N 1974.99-101), it is worth noting that |˜pros patterns tend to occupy strophe-final position in Stesichorean diction; cf. Geryoneis (SLG 7-87) strophe/antistrophe line 9 and epode lines 7-8, as mapped out in Haslam 1974.11. As for the hexameter of the elegiac distich, its patterns are statistically distinct from those of the Homeric hexameter: see Greenberg 1985 and 1985b.

[ back ] 100. Data in Haslam 1978.43.

[ back ] 101. Ibid.

[ back ] 102. Ibid.

[ back ] 103. For example, Stesichorus Thebaid 230 in the edition of Haslam 1978.33.

[ back ] 104. By functional equivalence here, I mean the same thing as what metricians call responsion, that is, where metrical sequences match between strophe and antistrophe. For a survey of patterns where a sequence with ⏔ is in responsion with an otherwise identical sequence containing ⏓, see Haslam 1978.39-40.

[ back ] 105. Pointed out by Haslam 1974.49.

[ back ] 108. If the hexameter tends toward – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – at the expense of – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – and of – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏔̆ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –, this tendency can be expected to parallel a progressive restriction of incoming phraseology. For vestigial traces of – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – in hexameter, where wording shaped – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – is followed by ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –, see, e.g., Iliad IV 202, XI 697 (cf. West 1982.293n41). The progressive generalization of – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – over – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – in hexameter helps account for the absence of Homeric introductory phrases of the type *τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέφη, as discussed in N 1974.85. Such phrases would have been ousted by the evolving constraint against the sequence – ⏑ – produced by fusion of wording shaped of – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – and of – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –.

[ back ] 109. N 1974.49-102, following up on the suggestions of Wilamowitz 1921.98.

[ back ] 110. Alcaeus F 368.

[ back ] 111. N 1979b and 1983c. On the partially Aeolic heritage of the traditional phraseology in dactylic hexameter, there is further evidence, beyond what is offered in N 1974, in Bowie 1981, especially pp. 32-46. As I observe in N 1983c, my reservation about Bowie’s work is that he undervalues his own important results by not sufficiently heeding the discovery of Parry 1928b that the word break patterns of hexameter are not metrical devices actively deployed by the poet but metrical effects passively reflecting the junctures where traditional phrases may begin or end (cf. N 1974.57-61). Also, I find some unnecessary presuppositions about the notions of formula and oral poetry (p. 41). At Bowie, pp. 49-60, there is a particularly important assessment, with bibliography, of the linguistic evidence for an Aeolic phase in the evolution of the hexameter. I agree with his statement at p. 55: “In the case of possible Aeolic forms in Homer, we are not dealing with Lesbian or non-Lesbian, so much as with specifically Lesbian and generally Aeolic.”

[ back ] 112. See Allen 1987.113-114.

[ back ] 113. As we have seen in Stesichorus Geryoneis (SLG 7-87). We have also seen that, in Stesichorus Destruction of Ilion (SLG 88-132), initial ⏓ still survives as a variant of initial ⏔: longum over biceps.

[ back ] 114. N 1974.49-56. Also Allen 1973.255-259 and 1987.113-114.

[ back ] 115. N 1974.196, 216; cf. Allen 1973.258.

[ back ] 116. N 1974.55, with references. While accepting the special status of the first foot of hexameter in allowing spondaic word endings, Berg 1978.29 argues for the special status of the second foot as well, on the grounds that this foot, unlike the third, fourth, and fifth feet, shuns dactylic word endings, not just spondaic ones (cf. Allen 1973.291-292). He claims that this constraint in the second foot is conditioned by the oncoming caesura in the third foot. It appears that Berg thinks of caesura patterns as diachronic shapers of phraseology; I prefer to follow Parry 1928b in thinking of phraseology as the diachronic shaper of caesura patterns (N 1974.57-61). In what follows, we have occasion to consider some phraseological reasons for the constraint against dactylic word ending in the second foot: that the third foot is a primary zone for syntactical boundaries in the hexameter, as reflected by the primary caesuras. When the caesura comes after the long syllable of the third foot, the second foot can have word end after the dactyl only if the next word is a monosyllable. According to Berg’s own etymology of the hexameter (cf. also Tichy 1981), the first and the second feet of hexameter together reflect an earlier pattern shaped ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ ⏓ …, as distinct from the pattern ⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ … posited in my scheme. I am in partial agreement with the critique of Berg by Ritoók 1987.4-5. While I am on the subject of Berg’s 1978 article, I should note in passing that I am horrified by his misunderstanding of the English idiom hit upon (N, p. 148), which he betrays with the placement of his bracketed sign “!” between “hit” and “upon” (Berg, p. 18); the phrase is taken from a deliberately sarcastic sentence of mine that mocks the topos of the “first discoverer” (ibid.).

[ back ] 117. Cf. Haslam 1974.15. Only at the beginning of cola can ⏑ ⏑ be substituted for – in the Geryoneis of Stesichorus, corresponding to the optional substitution of – ⏑ ⏑ for – – in the first foot of hexameter.

[ back ] 118. Ibid.

[ back ] 119. To repeat, the Aeolic fragments that I have examined are: Alcaeus F 44, 50, 115a; 296b, 340-349; cf. Theocritus 28, 30 and Callimachus F 400.

[ back ] 120. We would expect the pher@3da to accommodate a variety of other patterns as well. In the actual attestations of pher@3da in Alcaeus F 367 and 368, we find the following configurations of word breaking:

⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ | ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – –
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – |⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – –
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ | ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –
⏓ ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – | ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ | ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –.

[ back ] 121. Such correspondences reinforce the argument of Hooker 1977.80-81 that these Alcaic and Hesiodic compositions are independently drawing upon cognate traditions. If indeed the pattern of word breaking at position 4 in hexameter is conditioned by phraseology shaped |˜Z*| at the close of glyconics, it seems pertinent that position 4 in hexameter is a common point of syntactical closure. An extreme example is the end of the Iliad, where the scholia to the Townley manuscript report a performance tradition where the last line, 804, can be stopped at position 4, to accommodate an actual beginning of the Aithiopis narrative starting at this same position 4: according to this tradition, the last word at line 804, ἱπποδάμοιο ‘horse-tamer’, as applied to Hektor, is deleted, and a clause introducing the grand opening theme of the Aithiopis is substituted: ἦλθε δ’ Ἀμαζών ‘and there came an Amazon …’.

[ back ] 122. For example, ταχὺς ἄγγελος in Sappho 44.3 and ταχὺς ἄγγελος in Odyssey xv 526; ἐλικώπιδα in Sappho 44.5 and ἑλικώπιδες in Homeric Hymn 33.1; προγενέστεραι in Sappho 44.31 and προγενέστερος in Iliad IX 161.

[ back ] 123. Cf. Sappho F 44.7-8, where ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ἄλμυρον#πόντον corresponds to hexameter line-final ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ, as in Odyssey iv 511. The expression ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ is apparently secondary to ἁλμυρος … πόντος, as we can see from the expressions ἁλμυρὸς ἔτρεφε Πόντος and ἁλμυρὸς ἔνδοθι πόντος in Hesiod Theogony 107 and 964, respectively. In other words it seems that πόντος displaces ὕδωρ in certain environments, not the other way around.

[ back ] 124. Cf. Alcaeus F 347.8-9, where Σείριος#ἄσδει corresponds to hexameter line-final Σείριος ἄζει in Hesiod Works and Days 587. At #915, we have already examined correspondences between this Alcaic composition and the Hesiodic passage from which this line, Works 587, is taken.

[ back ] 125. Cf. p. 456, where the wording that fills glyc@2da in Sappho F 44.10 can be described as pher* followed by ˜*glyc.