"Chodim"? A metrical question

Textkit Community Open Board
1

I’ve been meaning to ask this one for a long time. I have the Teubner edition of Pindar, and I’ve noticed that they use a metrical term I am unfamiliar with: “chodim.” You can see it, for instance, on p. 1 of the Epinician Odes, Olympian 1, line 5 of the metrical analysis of the Epode, where the metrical shape

UU-U -UU- -U-U-

is analyzed as “chodim -U-U-”

Things get even more confusing on p. 86, the metrical analysis of Pythian 8 (my favorite of course: the home of the sublime ἐπάμεροι· τί δέ τις; τί δ’ οὔ τις; σκιᾶς ὄναρ ἄνθρωπος). There you will see the pattern

  • U-UU UUU-

analyzed as “gl vel chodim” (the line immediately above, with the pattern

UU U-UU -U-

is marked unambiguously as a glyconic), then the third line,

–U- UU-

is marked as ^chodim (a headless chodim?) while line 6

X-U-UU-- X-U- U-

is marked as ^chodim (gl) – which is supposed to mean what? That a it could be either a headless chodim OR a glyconic, or that it is definitely headless, but either a headless chodim or a headless glyconic?

I’m totally confused!

Line 1 of the Epode in Pythian 8 is annotated:

U -U-UU- U -U-

which is analyzed as ^chodim ba ia

Can anybody make sense of this? And I presume “chodim” is an abbreviation, but what it is an abbreviation of? Is this a term that only German classicists use? I’ve never seen it.

2

Chodim is “choriambic dimeter,” a catch-all term for an eight syllable line ending in a choriamb: xxxx-uu-.

I think the term was first used regularly by Wilamowitz. West tends to see such choriamb-final forms as anaclastic versions of other eight-syllable aeolic lines (glyconic or telesillean).

3

I thought of just sending you an email directly, since I knew you’d know. But I figured, what the hell – might as well share the knowledge :slight_smile:.

4

Yes, but please! Call it “acephalous.” :slight_smile:

is marked as ^chodim (gl) – which is supposed to mean what? That a it could be either a headless chodim OR a glyconic, or that it is definitely headless, but either a headless chodim or a headless glyconic?

Ok, the parenthetical notation indicates that a cola is a modification of the named cola, but isn’t amenable to the usual notations. So you might have several different cola marked out as “(gl)”. This is Snell’s way of saying that the cola is clearly derived from gl or (gl) from a previous (possibly the previous) line. It’s a notation of etymology, not identity.

So this line is an acephalic choriambic dimeter (I’d call it tl:, an anaclastic telesillean) followed by a modified glyconic.

5

Thanks for the clarification. :smiley:

Pardon my pedantry, though, but isn’t the singular of “cola” “colon”? :wink:

6

D’oh!

Yes, it is. I always do this when I go back and edit a sentence for clarity.