The fifth foot is the favourite place for the tribrach, and next to that the first:— ⏑ ⏑⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ – χρονιος | αλλ ομ|ως ταχ|ιστα | κακος εφ|ωραθ|η φιλ|οιςꞈ (_Orestes_, 740). Euripides, late in his career, introduced a good deal of license, here as elsewhere. Firstly, tribrachs become far more frequent and occur in unusual places:— ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ᷋ ανοσι|ος πεφ|υκας | αλλ ου | πατριδος | ως συ | πολεμι|οςꞈ (_Phœnissæ_, 609). To place a resolved foot practically at the end of the line is bold—the metre is shaken almost to pieces. Here, as in other respects, Euripides points forward to the conversational manner of the New Comedy. But he goes further, and allows feet hitherto not found in trochaics: the anapæst and the dactyl. The latter, however, is extremely rare[868] and employed only with proper names:— – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – συγγον|ον τ εμ|_ην Πυλαδ_|ην τε | τον ταδ|ε ξυνδρ|ωντα | μοιꞈ (_Orestes_, 1535). – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ᷋ εις αρ | _Ιφιγεν_|ειαν | Ελενης | νοστος | ην πεπρ|ωμεν|οςꞈ (_Iph. Aul._, 882). The anapæst is commoner (there is a proper-name instance in the line just quoted):— – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ως νιν | _ικετευσ_|ω με | σωσαι | το γε δικ|αιον | ωδ εχ|ειꞈ (_Orestes_, 797). – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ᷋ και συ | μητερ | αθεμιτ|ον σοι | μητρος | _ονομαζ_|ειν καρ|αꞈ (_Phœn._, 612). There is no rule as to cæsura. The end of the fourth foot regularly coincides with the end of a word; such an arrangement is named diæresis.[869] In all extant tragedy only one certain exception to this rule is found:— – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ ᷋ ει δοκ|ει στειχ|ωμεν | ω _γενν|αιον_ | ειρηκ|ως επ|οςꞈ (_Philoctetes_, 1402). Since diæresis is practically always found in so many hundreds of lines, being preserved even in the loosest writing of Euripides, why should we regard the recognized trochaic verse as an unity? Why not write, _e.g._:— οὐ γὰρ ἂν ξυμβαῖμεν ἄλλως ἢ ’πὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ὥστ’ ἐμὲ σκήπτρων κρατοῦντα τῆσδ’ ἄνακτ’ εἶναι χθονός (_Phœnissæ_, 590 _sq._). If the line falls into two clearly marked halves, why not show this to the eye? There is no unanswerable objection to doing so—the passage above corresponds exactly in rhythmical form to much English verse, _e.g._:—