172

Eupolis

By placing the spondees out of order in the iambic and trochaic feet, they make it into
apolyschematist, like the following parabasis (1):-The first foot, choriambic, andres
etai. The second foot, despite being iambic, had the spondee in (the} even-numbered
portion, roi deur ede. The third foot, despite being trochaic, had the spondee in the
odd-numbered foot, ten gndmen pro. And finally the closing portion, trochaic, ischete.
(2)-: The first foot, choriambic, ei dynaton. The second foot, in a legitimate iambic,
kai me ti mei. The third foot, despite being trochaic, has the spondee in the odd-num-
bered portion, zon prattousa. The closing portion, again trochaic, tynchanei
Meter Two different forms of comic dicolon; see Introduction, Section 7; and
in general West 1982. 95-6. Hephaestion and the commentators on his text
are clearly baffled by the meter, which they misanalyze as an eccentric mix
of choriambs and trochees.

Discussion d’Arnaud 1728. 150; Hermann 1816. 583-4; Bergk 1838. 339-40;
Meineke 1839 11.438; Whittaker 1935. 189; Schiassi 1944. 66-7
Citation context From a discussion of “compound” metres, i. e. those sup-
posedly made up out of elements of different sorts, in the surviving, abridged
version of a metrical handbook originally composed in the 2nd century CE
most likely drawing on Heliodorus.
Text In 1, Hermann’s δεύρο δή is necessary for the meter in place of the
paradosis δεύρ’ ήδη (retained by Kassel-Austin), a very simple error already
present in the text when it was being commented on.
At the end of 1, the idiom requires a form of προσέχω rather than προέχω;
see Interpretation.
In 3, γίγνομαι rather than γίνομαι appears to be the standard form in
Attic until the very end of the 4th century BCE (Threatte 1980. 562). Heph.1
has converted imperfect ξυνεγινόμην into aorist ξυνεγενόμην, which will not
do metrically.
Interpretation From the parabasis. 1-2 are likely from the very beginning
of the parabasis proper (thus already Bergk). Hephaestion is clear about the
fact that 3 is not continuous with 1-2, and most likely it is not even from
the same section of the parabasis, given that the meter is different. The line
would thus better have been assigned a separate number (as in Kock). Bergk
suggested that 3 came from the epirrheme or antepirrheme, like fr. 172 (n.).
The tone in 1-2 is ingratiating and almost apologetic (see below), perhaps