shouldn’t τί be heavy, since it is followed by two consonants?
Mute (π, τ, κ, φ, θ, χ) + liquid (λ, ρ, sometimes μ, ν) clusters are sometimes but not always treated as making the preceding syllable heavy/long even if it contains a short vowel.. Really the underlying issue is whether the syllable in question is open (ending in a vowel) or closed (ending in a consonant).
A mute when followed by a liquid is sometimes treated as:
– articulated with the preceding vowel, creating a closed, or heavy/long syllable even if the vowel is short, or
– articulated with the following liquid, leaving the preceding syllable open and therefore light/short if the vowel is short.
In this regard, ancient Greek was articulated into syllables without regard to word-boundaries, a little like French liaison (les arbres articuated in speech as lé zarb).
In the case of 135, τί χρὴ could be articulate either as τίχ-ρὴ with τίχ heavy/long, or as τί-χρὴ, with τί light/short. But the second τί must be treated as light/short, because this verse is iambic trimeter. The first τί is analyzed by Schein as light/short by analogy and also to respond with the corresponding verse in the antistrophe: μέλον πάλαι μέλημά μοι λέγεις, ἄναξ, (150). Arguably, however, the metrical slot of the first τί could be analyzed as anceps (either long or short, represented by x) in the iambic metron (x _ υ _) but there is no need here to do so.
I thought that strophe and antistrophe were perfect metrical copies of each other, but (very) minor differences seem to be allowed: is that correct?
Some slots may be anceps (for example, an “Aeolic basis,” i.e., the first two slots in “Aeolic” metra such as glyconics and pherecratics), so that a short/light syllable might respond to a long/heavy syllable, and sometimes a long/heavy slot may be resolved, with responsion to between a heavy/long syllable and two light/short syllables. Also, of course, the last syllable of a colon was always treated as heavy/long, regardless of the actual quantity of the syllable.
Other instances of non-responsion are often textually suspect. The principles of Greek metrics, especially the meters of choral lyric, were not understood during the Byzantine era – in fact, not really until the early 19th century, and even after that, our understanding has been evolving. Many instances of textual corruption could not be diagnosed as such by copyists and editors until relatively recently. In the 13th century some Byzantine scholars had an imperfect grasp of the subject, but it sometimes led them to perpetrate further textual errors.
I hope this isn’t too confusing, but metrical discussions usually are, at least to me.