Introduction

29

In i-ii, iv and v, Eupolis consistently uses more iambs than Aristophanes does,
while in iii he uses fewer. In i and iii, meanwhile, he uses fewer spondees,
whereas in iii he uses more. Similarly, 2.1% of Aristophanes’ lines contain no
iambs (White 1912 § 96, converted to percentages to allow for comparison
with Eupolis), whereas only 0.43% of Eupolis’ lines (only one of 234 complete,
textually sound iambic trimeters) do the same.

- Tribrachs are distributed in very similar proportions in the two poets. For
Aristophanes, the figures are (White 1912 § 100, converted to percentages to
allow for comparison with Eupolis):

1
n
111
IV
V
2.3%
10.9%
3.5%
12.5%
0.8%
Compare the figures for Eupolis:
i
ii
iii
iv
V
2.9%
9.8%
4.6%
12.9%
0.7%

The same is true of the pattern of the use of tribrachs consisting of a single
word, although in this case the absolute numbers for Eupolis are much smaller
and only general tendencies can be compared. For Aristophanes, the figures
are (White 1912 § 101, converted to percentages to allow for comparison with
Eupolis):

1
11
111
IV
V
21.8%
30.1%
3.5%
42.4%
2.2%
Compare the figures
for Eupolis:
i
ii
iii
iv
V
28%
39%
0%
28%
5.6%

Unlike Aristophanes (White § 105), on the other hand, Eupolis scrupulously
avoids dividing tribrachs the sole exception is in what appears to be a
proverbial and thus metrically fixed phrase in fr. 279.

- Like Aristophanes (White 1912 § 125), Eupolis avoids the forbidden combi-
nations and —zoo-

Iambic tetrameter catalectic is preserved in frr. 12; 85; 129; 171; 192a-gg;
203-4; 245; 268e-f; 281; 292; 384-5; 387-8; 390.29 Of the 30 complete, textually
sound lines included in this group, 19 (= 63.3%) feature caesura between the
second and third foot. Of the 10 remaining complete, textually sound iambic
tetrameters catalectic, 5 (= 16.7% of the total of 30, and 50% of those without
caesura between the second and third foot) close — I o—. lambic dimeter is

29

Perhaps add frr. 248; 292; 387; 389.