232 C. M.

BOWRA
uncertainty of scansion is at the end of i, where Oewv can b e either a disyllable
as usual, or a monosyllable as less usual. T h e first alternative would mean that
we have a scansion rather like that of 01. 6 Str. 3 ; the second that the dactylic
series ends in a spondee. I n 10 the resolution of the third syllable in -w-<-> to
produce - ^ ^> ^ is not common b u t has some sort of parallel in Isthm. 2 E p . 6.
These are unimportant details. W h a t matter are more striking divergences
from the usual practice of dactylo-epitrites.
T h e first of these, which struck Wilamowitz, is that the final syllables of the
different metra are nearly as often short as long. T h u s we find - ^ w - ^ w - ^
instead o f - ^ ^ - ^ ^ — at 6 (twice) and 9, - u w - u instead of -w— at 3 , 8 ,
and 10, and -<---^ instead of - ^ — twice at 10. This is not the practice of
either Pindar or Bacchylides and makes it unlikely that either is the author.
For this reason Wilamowitz decided that, by process of exhaustion, the lines
must be the work of Simonides. H e does not argue for this in detail, but the
extant remains of Simonides' dactylo-epitrites support his case. In fr. 5 d
- w ^ - ^ o - w appears in 4, 6, and 7 and - ^ - ^ in 2 (twice) and 7; while in fr.
20 - ^ ^ - w w - ^ appears in 3 and -<-*-^ in 2 and 4. Other fragments in the
same metre suggest a similar usage, and we cannot doubt that Wilamowitz's
instinct was sound when he assigned the lines to Simonides because of this
metrical peculiarity.
T h e metrical analysis reveals another abnormality of which Wilamowitz says
nothing, perhaps because h e did not anticipate Nauck in seeing that 1-2 are
a n integral part of the fragment. I n 1-3 we have successions of dactyls, pre-
ceded indeed in I by - ^ - and in 3 by - ^ ^ u ^ - u , but none the less striking
and unexpected in the company of dactylo-epitrites. T o this Bacchylides pre-
sents no parallel, a n d Pindar only when h e uses - w ^ - ^ ^ - ^ w — at Pyth. 4
Str. 4, Nem. 1 Ep. 3 and 5 Ep. 9, and Isthm. 5 E p . 8, and in a catalectic form
a t Pyth. 4 Str. 5, or the longer - ^ w - w ^ - ^ ^ - w ^ — at Pyth. 3 Str. 4. Pindar's
practice varies in two important respects. First, his dactylic series always end in
one or two long syllables, and secondly h e never has so many as five dactyls in
succession. H e seems not so much to introduce dactyls for their own sake as to
extend the usual dactylic metron which is basic to dactylo-epitrites. Nor is the
free intrusion of dactyls any commoner in choral passages of tragedy or comedy.
I t is true that at Ajax 172 (182) Sophocles begins a n almost purely dactylo-
epitrite strophe with a dactylic series and that at Peace 775-95 (796-816)
Aristophanes uses mainly dactylo-epitrites, but at 790-1 (814-15) he uses first
a dactylic hexameter and then a dactylic tetrameter. But both these cases are
mild mixtures compared with our fragment. W e cannot say that it is charac-
teristic of Simonides, whose extant fragments provide nothing like it, but it is
none the less likely that the poet who introduces dactyls in this way operates
with an earlier form of dactylo-epitrites than that of Pindar or Bacchylides, in
both of whom practice has hardened into a more rigorous shape.
I t might of course be argued that the lines come not from lyric poetry proper
but from a choral ode in tragedy. It is true that their style and manner bear
little relation to anything extant in the works of the three tragedians, but there
remains the possibility that they come from some other tragedian whose manner
is not known to us. I n the last resort this is impossible to disprove, but surely
most will share Nauck's conclusion that the fragment does not come from
a lost play because 'a tragoedia alienum est'. W h a t is lacking is anything that
smacks of the stage or drama, not merely the individual references which keep

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800021881 Published online by Cambridge University Press