ARCHILOCHUS THE 'ANTI-HERO'?

HEROISM, FLIGHT AND VALUES IN HOMER AND THE

NEW ARCHILOCHUS FRAGMENT (P.OXY LXIX 4708)
Author(s): L.A. SWIFT
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 132 (2012), pp. 139-155
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722259
Accessed: 19-08-2016 14:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press, The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Hellenic Studies 132 (2012) 139-155 doi:10.1017/S0075426912000109

ARCHILOCHUS THE 'ANTI-HERO'?

HEROISM, FLIGHT AND VALUES IN HOMER AND
THE NEW ARCHILOCHUS FRAGMENT (P.OXY LXIX 4708)

L.A. SWIFT
The Open University*

Abstract: This article investigates how flight in battle is presented in the newly discovered Archilochus fragm
(P.Oxy LXIX 4708) and compares it to the Homeric treatment of the issue. It argues that the traditional dicho
between scholars who see Archilochus as 'subverting' epic values and those who see him as continuous with th
too simplistic, and that the new poem provides clear evidence of a more nuanced approach to epic material.
fragment's approach reflects many of the subtleties found in Homeric attitudes to flight, and in this respect we
Archilochus using the cultural authority of epic to add weight to his argument. Nevertheless, the choice of
Telephus myth, which tells the story of a mistaken conflict, is an ironic one, and the narrative foregrounds the
in which the Achaeans at Mysia fall short of heroic norms and perhaps casts aspersions on the contemporary scen
to which the mythological conflict appears to be compared. Hence the poem contains competing strands of c
lation, celebration of an aristeia and mockery in a way which demonstrates Archilochus' varied and su
relationship to epic.

Keywords: Archilochus, Homer, heroism, epic, elegiac

One of the central areas of interest for scholars working on Archilochus has been his relation
to Homeric poetry. In addition to the linguistic connections between Archilochus' poetry an
Homeric epic, Archilochus makes use of similar themes and draws on a similar set of values to
traditional heroic material we know of from the Homeric poems.1 Yet the obvious difference
the way this material is handled has led to one of the longest-standing debates in the study
Archilochus' poetry: should we read him as a poet who fundamentally criticizes or undermines
values of epic or should we instead focus on the continuities between Homer and Archilochus
The publication of a major new fragment in 2005 paves the way for renewed interes
Archilochus as a poet.3 Due to the need to establish a more-or-less secure version of the tex
scholarship to date has tended to focus on the textual and linguistic aspects of the fragment, rather
than on how it contributes to our broader picture of Archilochus' oeuvre .4 Yet the new poem

* laura.swift@open.ac.uk. I would like to thank Bill

2 For Archilochus as anti-epic or anti-heroic, cf. for
Allan, Angus Bowie, Roger Brock, Adrian Kelly andexample
the Fraenkel (1951) chapter 4; Snell (1953)
chapter 3; Dover (1964) 196-98; Treu (1968); Tarditi
anonymous readers of JHS for their comments on earlier
drafts of this article. I would also like to thank the (1968) 7; Burnett (1983) 38^2; Morris (1996) 35;
audiences at the seminars at Oxford, Manchester and theBarker and Christensen (2006); for criticisms of this
Freie Universität of Berlin where I gave oral presenta- position and attempts to find continuity with Homer, cf.
tions based on this article: the argument has benefittedPage (1964); Russo (1974); Rankin (1977) 40-46;
greatly from the insightful points raised. The article wasToohey (1988); Fowler (1987) 3-13; Corrêa (1998) 132;
written while I held a Leverhulme Fellowship at UCL,Rougier-Blanc (2008) 25-26.
and I am grateful to the Leverhulme Trust for their J First published by Obbink (2005). For alternative
generous support. readings and revised versions of the text, see also
1 For discussions of Archilochus' use of Homeric D'Alessio (2006); Henry (2006); Luppe (2006);
language and motifs, see Tarditi (1956); Scherer (1964); Magnelli (2006); Nicolosi (2006); Obbink (2006);
Page (1964); Fowler (1987) 13-33; and most recentlyTammaro (2006); West (2006). For a detailed study of
Létoublon (2008). For the contribution made to thisthe various readings suggested, see Nicolosi (2007).
topic by the discovery of the Cologne Epode, see 4 Exceptions are Barker and Christensen (2006);
Campbell (1976). Nobili (2009); Aloni and Iannucci (2007) 205-37.

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 140 SWIFT

of critical importan
Archilochus' other sur
on the tales of the Tr
material, and demons
article will explore wh
will examine it in dep
I shall argue that the
values or as straight
relationship with ep
Moreover, reading A
Archilochus but the e
attitude to heroism an
article I shall explore
fleeing in battle, but
As we shall see, the n
enhancing our reading
standing the epic trad

I. Archilochus and Homer

Claiming a relationship between two such early texts is a fraught process, and so I shall lay
methodological groundwork before turning to the poems themselves. Scholars have differ
whether it is possible to argue that Archilochus 'knew' Homer in the sense of having access
fixed version of the Iliad and Odyssey or whether he simply drew on a shared pool of oral t
tions and heroic myth.6 Given the extreme paucity of evidence for the early circulation and trans
mission of Homer, this argument is impossible to resolve, for any position adopted relies on
own assumptions about the date of the Iliad and the point in the poem's history when it w
committed to writing. For the purposes of this article, I am not committed to insisting t
Archilochus had access to a fixed version of the Iliad or that he had heard the poem in the f
that it has come down to us. Rather, the only starting premise I find it necessary to rely on
idea that Archilochus knew Homeric-sřy/e epic about the Trojan War,7 and that therefore he
familiar with both the language and tropes of epic and the traditional stories it drew upon.8
of these ideas are conclusively proved by the new fragment.
In the new poem, Archilochus uses formulae familiar to us from Homer: for example his
of the phrase 7toA,ucpXoicßoi[o 0axáccr|c (10) or èi)KYf|(J.[iSec Axaioí (12).9 He also demonst
the ability to work within the traditional system of composition, generating formulae based

6 For an overview of the possible positions, see

5 Barker and Christensen (2006) seek to address this
question but reach a very different conclusion. Garner
They (2005) 389-91.
argue for a subversive interpretation of the fragment, 7 By 'Homeric-style' I mean simply heroic
reading it as 'a narrative that glories in flight' (16),hexameter
but, epic, of the type known to us from the Iliad
andisOdyssey. Thus when I use the adjective 'Homeric'
as I argue below, Archilochus' attitude to flight
later in this article, I mean it in this sense, and not only
considerably more complex than straightforwardly
to refer to the Homeric poems we have today.
advocating it, and we should not overlook the many
8 Of course, for readers who posit an early date for
ways in which the Iliad also makes allowance for flight.
the fixing of the Iliad and therefore that Archilochus
Nobili (2009) rightly observes that the relationship
between the new poem and epic is more complexcould than have known a version of the poem which was
more
simply a wholesale rejection (270-71), but she draws on or less the same as the one we have, my argument
the Odyssey for a Homeric defence of flight; cf.will alsobe all the more secure, as they will be comfortable
Seidensticker (1978). However, as various Homeric reading the parallels between Archilochus and Homer as
direct
scholars have demonstrated, the attitude to flight in the intertexts.
Iliad is not straightforwardly negative, and we should 9 Studies of Archilochus' corpus before the publi-
cation of the new fragment have often remarked on the
apply these insights to Archilochus' use of epic material.

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 'ANTI-HERO'? 141

not identical to) Homeric formulae: for example, in line 8

phrase aixi¿r|wí rcsp éóvx8[c], drawing on the Homeric u
numbers) as a qualifier.10 Similarly, his use of the form
related to the common Homeric cxpaxòv supův, though it
impossible to know whether this represents Archilochus h
formulaic system or whether he is simply drawing on a w
those transmitted via the Homeric poems. What we can be
was familiar with the diction and style of heroic poetry
within the system. Thus, whether or not we are happy t
specifically, we can confidently say that it evokes heroic
using such language is designed to trigger the convention
in the minds of the audience.
The new poem also demonstrates that Archilochus knew not only Homeric language but also
Homeric myth. The story told in the new fragment is, of course, not one familiar to us from the
Iliad or Odyssey , but the myth of Telephus, previously known through the epic cycle, as well as
in later treatments such as Euripides' Telephus , parodied by Aristophanes.12 West, in his analysis
of the poem, interprets Archilochus' use of the Telephus myth as indicating his lack of familiarity
with the stories known to the Iliad- poet and instead attesting to a different tradition.13 Yet the
Telephus myth is clearly subordinate to the sack of Troy myth, for it assumes as a starting premise
that the audience know why the Achaeans were on their way to Troy and what they eventually
went on to do when they arrived there: it would make no sense for Archilochus to tell the
Telephus myth in a context where it did not fit with a wider awareness of the Trojan stories.14
West would no doubt accept this, for his scepticism relates to whether Archilochus knew the
stories of the Iliad specifically rather than Trojan myth in general. However, the Iliad- poet too
presumably drew his stories from a wider pool, and we cannot know which were developed or
shaped by the poet himself and which were episodes rooted in the broader tradition. The
inscription on the Pithekoussai vase known as 'Nestor's cup' (SEG 14.604) demonstrates that
aspects of what we know as the Iliad-story were known across Greece at a surprisingly early
date.15 We do not have to assume that the painter of Nestor's cup had heard the Iliad , only that

similarities between his language and that of Homer (see
n.l). Yet, as many of these scholars have pointed out,
we must take care in distinguishing between language
which is unequivocally Homeric and that which simply
reflects the Ionic dialect of Paros: see Scherer (1964) 97.
Hexameter epic-style formulae such as the ones
discussed above, therefore, represent a firm basis upon
which to claim that Archilochus intends to evoke epic
and is not just composing poetry in his local idiom.
10 Most commonly used in Homer to qualify adjec-
tives and occurs in many cases and genders: cf, for
example, àyaOóc rcsp écòv: II. 1.131, 275, 15.185,
19.155; xpucsúl nep éoüca: II. 18.549; Trousse rcsp
éóvxsc: II. 5.94, 9.552; néyav rcep éóvxa II. 4.534, 5.625;
cpiÀT|v 7iep éoùcav: II. 1.587; Kpavafjc rcep éoúcr|c: II.
3.201; icp0i|Koi 7iep éóvxi: II. 12.410, 20.356. Close
parallels to Archilochus' usage where it qualifies a noun
are vóGov 7isp éóvxa: II. 8.284; 8oi)piicxr|xf|v rcep éoïïcav:
II. 9.343; yépcov rcep écbv 7iota|iicxf|c: II. 10.549; véicuv
7isp éóvxa: II. 24.35.
11 cxpaxòv eùpùv: II. 1.229, 384, 478, 484, 2.439,
4.209, 436, 19.196, 24.199. rcoMv cxpaxòv is not a
formula found elsewhere in Greek poetry before the
fifth century.
12 See Cypria fr. 1 Bernabé; Apollod. Epit. 3.17.
The story of Telephus' routing of the Achaeans is also
told in the Hesiodic catalogue of women (fr. 165 M-W).
For the sources for the Telephus myth, see Gantz (1993)
428-3 1 , 578-80; for its relevance to the poem, see Aloni
and Iannucci (2007) 210-12.
13 West (2006) 16-17.
14 Artistic evidence shows that stories about the
Trojan War were well established by the seventh
century: see Burgess (2001) 33-44.
15 Scholars have debated what level of familiarity
with the Iliad the inscription presupposes: at one end of
the scale we find those who read the inscription as
referring specifically to the Iliadic description of
Nestor's cup (11.632-37) and therefore take it to
represent a terminus ante quem for the Iliad : cf. Riiter
and Matthiessen (1969); Kirk (1985) 4; Powell (1989),
who calls the inscription 'Europe's first literary
allusion' (340). Yet it is impossible to prove definitively
that the painter was referring to the Iliadic scene rather
than simply to a myth where Nestor has a famous cup:
for more sceptical views, see West (1994); Faraone
(1996). Dihle (1969) goes as far as to suggest that the
'Nestor' in the inscription is not the heroic figure but

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 142 SWIFT

he knew of a story w
perspective, the Nes
associated with the po
that the ///ad-poet t
was a well-established
strates the difficulti
words, could only ha
which may have evol
to other episodes and
Hector's aristeia (dis
elements of the Iliad
in the absence of one.
When I examine pass
argument does not re
Homer or that the au
sense of Archilochus.
examples of heroic m
across these specific in
more broadly, and he
since phases of retre
Moreover, it is unwis
via a fixed Iliad and th
from other epic tradi
of Homer and the tra
light on Archilochus'
Archilochus engages.

II. Flight and herois

The new poem tells t
defeat by the hero T
on the merits of fligh

]....[

ei 8è] . 0eoî> Kpatepfl[c vn àváyicr|c

oi) XP1! àv]aÀ[Kt:ír|]Y Kai KaKÓTr)xa Xéyev[v,
7i]iíy[a|ť çy [e'í|x]e0a 5[r¡i]a cpuyeîv <peúy[eiv 8é tic copiy
Kai 3ioi[t: |i]oí)yoç çœy TrjÀecpoc Àptca[cíôr|c (5)
Âpyeícov ¿(p0ßt|ce 7io/à>v cTpax[óv,] q[í 8è cpeßovTo
âÂKi^[ou] fj -toca 8f| fioTpa 0eã»v ¿ipoßa,

simply a contemporary Pithekousan, though most

epic, he could easily have drawn from it to demonstrate
his point that even the best fighters are sometimes
scholars have taken Nestor to be the legendary hero,
forced to flee'. Yet, as I argue below, we can read the
given the lack of evidence for mythological names
being used by historical-period Greeks. choice of Telephus more productively if we see it as a
16 West (2006) 16 questions whether Archilochus
positive choice, for the Telephus story has a poetic angle
could have known the Iliad and yet still have chosenwhich
to the Iliadic routs of heroes lack: the theme of a
battle
use the Telephus story, as he argues that 'If the Iliad had fought by mistake.
been established in Archilochus' time as the supreme

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 'ANTI-HERO'? 143

aix|ir|Taí nep 8ÓVTs[c.] éüpp8Íxr|c ôè K[àïKoc

7r]l7lIQVTCaV V8KÓÍÚV CX8ÍV8XO Kal [718ÔÍOV
Múçiov, oi ô' 87ii Giva 7coX,i)(pX,oicßoi[o 0aA,áccr|c (10)
xépc'] V7l' à|I8lÀ,ÌKXOD cpcoxòc 8VaipÓ[|I8VOl
7üpo]xp07üá5r|v árçéicÀivov éüKyf|Ki[i08C Â^aioí*
á]ç7tácioi ô' éc véaç (ò[K]vrçóp[o]vç [eceßav
7iaî5éc x' àOaváxcov içai àõeXcpeoí, [ouc Ayajiéjivcav
IXiov sic iepqv qys p,axT|co|i8Vo[')c- (15)
o]i 5è xóxe ßtaxcpOevxec óôou 7iapà 0[Tv' àqnicovxo-
TsJúOpavxoç 5' çpaxfjv Tcpòc tcóà,iv [s]£[é;r8cov
8]v0a [|i]8YQC 7TV8ÍOVX8Ç ÓjlCDC ai)XO[í X8 Kai Ï7T7TOI
à(pp[a5í]r|i jieyáAxoc Odjxòv àicrixé[ôaxo-
(pjávxo yàp v''fiiu)Xov Tpcòcov nôXiv eic[avaßaiv8iv (20)
aî]n/a* fx[á]x^Y ô'87iáx80V Mvaíôa 7rupocpópo[v.
'HpaKÀJérçç 5' fivxr|ç[8] ßocov xaX[a]Kápôiov [díóv,tí
o5]pov à|x[8]í?iiK:[xov] Sri'icoi èv [7toÀ,]8ji[coi
T]f|X£(pov oç Aavaoici Kaicf|v [x]ó[xe (pi3Çav évópcac
fí]peiÔ8 [7cpó]jxaxoc, rcaxpi xapi^ófitevoc (25)
...]

If (one retreats?) under the powerful co

we were right when we hastened to flee
Telephus Arkasides once, alone as he w
powerful men fled - so great was the f
The Kaikos with its beautiful streams w
plain, but the well-greaved Achaeans
towards the shore of the much-resound
and brothers of immortals, whom Agam
had lost their way and come to that sho
folly, snorting battle-might along with
thought they were quickly going up ag
upon wheat-bearing Mysia. And Hera
Telephus, fierce and pitiless in battle,
front ranks and pleased his father.

In order to explore what attitude th

why the poet recounts the Telephus
that the myth is used paradeigmatica
rather than being told for its own sa
have been told after the papyrus breaks
composition. The essential structure

17 The text printed here

Bowie (2010) is
151. that
The use of given
myth as by O
paradigm
published in ZPE (2006), where
persuade and motivate he
the listener is amake
well-establi
emendations to his original edition.
rhetorical technique: for exampleAll trans
Phoenix's use of
mv own.
Meleager myth at II. 9.529-99 or Achilles' use of
18 Cf. D'Alessio (2006) 21-22; Mayer (2006)
Niobe myth at II. 24.602-20; see Willcock (1964
15-16; Obbink (2006) 8; West (2006) 15; Aloni (1966);
Austin and Howie (1995).
Iannucci (2007) 208-09; an exception, however, is

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 (A) Telephus alone demonstrated exceptional prowess (5-6)
(B) Description of the battle-scene (6-12)
(C) Explanation of the back-story: why are the Achaeans in Mysia? (13-17)
(B) Description of the battle-scene (18-22)
(A) Telephus alone demonstrated exceptional prowess (23-25)

In addition to the structural ring-composition, we also find the technique operating on a

smaller scale: for example, the repetition of á|ieiX,ÍKTOC at 11 and 23, and the parallelism of
(iotivoc (5) and 7ipó|iaxoc (25). 19 The use of ring-composition suggests that the Telephus story is
drawing to a close at around the time the fragment gives out, and therefore that the point of the
exemplum should be clear from the lines we have.20 The opening lines of the fragment appear to
give an answer: while the text is badly damaged, the phrase KaKÓxr|Ta ^eyei[v (3) is clear, as is
the striking juxtaposition of cpuysïv and (p8')y[eiv (4). The myth is used to reflect on the
accusation of cowardice and on what it means to flee in battle, and thus the story of the Achaeans
fleeing before Telephus offers an analogue to whatever contemporary event Archilochus
describes. The new fragment has therefore been taken by commentators to be a defence or justi-
fication of flight, while Barker and Christensen have gone as far as to see the poem as a
celebration of flight and a rejection of the Iliadic distaste for retreat in battle.21 When we examine
the new poem in detail, however, the attitude to flight that emerges is hardly a defiant rejection
of the epic status quo. Rather, the poem's attitude to flight is extremely ambivalent and flips
between two competing forms of discourse.22 Archilochus goes out of his way to defend the
Achaeans from accusations of cowardice; this sense of special pleading serves to affirm rather
than subvert the status quo, for his defence rests on the idea that these are special circumstances
where the normal rules do not apply. Yet the function of the poem is not simply consolatory, and
the defence of the Achaeans is left deliberately incomplete. For, as we shall see, Archilochus sets
up the idea that there is no shame in flight only to subtly undermine it through the narrative
techniques which he deploys.
The sense of special pleading enters the poem in its opening lines, for the poem as we have
it opens with the phrase Qsov Kpai8pfj[c im' áváyKT|c (2), before presumably using this idea to
cast light on what one ought to call cowardice (KaKÓir|Ta Xéysi[v, 3). Archilochus does not
seem to be systematically rejecting the idea that fleeing is cowardly, but rather stressing the
divine compulsion that governs this particular instance of flight. The details of his language
reinforce this point, for while Kpaispf¡c im' áváyicr|c is a common hexameter formula, found in
Hesiod and the Epic Cycle, the dependence of áváyicr| on 0soö is a much rarer and more striking
formulation, unparalleled elsewhere in Archaic poetry.23 This dependence is unnecessary, for
áváyKT) usually stands alone as an abstract force with power in its own right, able to operate

19 [7ipó]|ia%oç is suggested by D'Alessio (2006) 20
(he also offers rípeiÔe[v x' a]jxaxoç as an alternative)
based on a new reading of the last three letters, and this
reading is accepted by Obbink (2006) 7. West (2006)
suggests fípeiÔe[v |io]vvoç, in which case the ring-
composition is still more striking.
20 Moreover, there is no reason to assume that
Archilochus directly alluded to later aspects of
Telephus' story, for example his wounding or his
guiding of the Achaeans to Troy. While the audience
may well have known these stories, as Mayer (2006) 16
points out, there is a limit to how much consolation they
provide, for even the most optimistic reading still
projects victory far into the future (arguably into the
subsequent generation, if we think of the myth that
Telephus' son Eurypylus was killed by Neoptolemus)
and in another location.
21 Barker and Christensen (2006) 15-16.
11 Scholars have disagreed on whether the poem
justifies or criticizes flight: see Obbink (2006) for the
former view; Mayer (2006) for the latter. Yet, as I
argue below, Archilochus deliberately switches
between both strategies, creating a sense of anxiety and
indecision for the audience. See also Aloni and
Iannucci (2007) 231-32 for the double viewpoint
created by the poet.
23 Kpaxeprjc U7t' avayicrjc: Hes. Thg. 517; Cypria jr.
9.3. The formula is also used by Theog. 1.387; Hdt
1 .67. 16 (the latter in a hexameter oracle, which suggests
it is a conventional formula).

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 'ANTI-HERO ' ? 1 45

independently of the gods.24 Archilochus is overloading his

implying that the retreat is not due simply to áváyicri, but
necessity doubled up with divine will: if àváyKr| alone c
àváyicri Ocoù should be even more irresistible. The intensity
further emphasized by the juxtaposition of (puysïv and
Archilochus introduces the paradigm, we sense his anxiety ab
counter-cultural message, the first lines of the fragment tr
particular set of circumstances are, in order to justify why t
viewed as koikóxíic.
From this defensive beginning, Archilochus then moves in
superficially this appears a straightforward exemplum, on ana
message we are led to expect (and the way most commentator
paradigm) is to justify the Achaean flight: 'it is not coward
great men that they were, fled before Telephus'. Yet rather
focus of the paradigm is Telephus himself: koú rçox[e (ijo
Apyeícov ecpoßrice îtoXùv cxpax[óv] (5-6). This observation
one, for the focus on Telephus has a significant effect on how
Rather than dwelling on the men forced to flee and defendin
focuses on the victor triumphant in battle and describes the
further underscored by the contrast between Telephus,
Achaeans, who are a 7toX.ùv oxpatóv (6), a comparison which
reminds us that acting alone he put an entire army to flight
in tension with the opening gnômê defending flight, partly
Achaeans' behaviour, routed by a single man, as ignominious
Archilochus' narrative strategy is designed to direct the audi
towards Telephus himself instead of his victims. It leads us
his impressive achievements, rather than on the defeated A
that lies behind their defeat. This is a form of discourse hard
flight, but rather one reminiscent of a Homeric aristeia, wh
individual hero is to raise his status in the poem and enc
brilliance.25 Thus although Archilochus purportedly introduc
moral 'flight need not be cowardice', he depicts it in a way
glory to be gained by putting others to flight rather than fl
undercut the moral rather than reinforce it.
Archilochus then switches tack once more, reverting to h
on justifying the retreat: the Achaeans are portrayed as impr
called Quüqi^oi] (7) and aixpirwi (8). The xóca clause (rj xóca 8
into the middle of this description, as though indicating th
choice the Achaeans had in fleeing, while the dependence of
doubling up of causality as the earlier áváyicr|c 0k où (2).26 Bu
of Telephus' impressive prowess, as Archilochus describes Te
in the river and on the plain of Mysia (8-10), and the panic-
(10-12): images which perhaps evoke Achilles' aristeia and hi

24 Cf. Kpaxepf] 5' 87iik8Íc8t'ature:

àváyKr|: II. 6.458;
cf. Od. 3.269, 11.292; HHAp. 238;
àváyKT|,
(peúyovxac àváyicr|i: II. 11.1 50; á^vújievoí has
7tep power/ in its own right
àváyKrji
vricov ri uúvovxo : II. 12.17 8-7 9 .
commonly described as acting indepen
25 On the Homeric aristeia , gods:
see Krischer (1971) 11 5.83, 613, 629, 1
for example
23-74. 16.849, 17.478, 672, 18.119, 22.5.
zo (xoîpa 08CÒV is found elsewhere m Archaic liter-

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
146 SWIFT

river Xanthus.27 Fro

explains how they cam
as we are told they ar
ctBavâxœv içai áSeÀxp
sometimes need to fle
tation is ambiguous. A
ships (à]ç7táctoi 8' sc
gladness refers to the
with which they now
description of their f
as the poem continue
earlier story, and thu
their quest for etern
attitude to flight, for
their humiliating defe
sudden temporal shift
again his exceptional s
by his father Heracle
is said to have brough
which seems deliberat
counts as kcucóttic. Y
we are perhaps encou
through Telephus or t
The poem thus weave
defensive emphasis o
second, the focus on T
Commentators on the
logically the two are c
that the Achaeans sh
impressive deeds, Arch
and the glory to be ga
the idea that flight
achievements of Telep
sizing Telephus' powe
order to highlight T
Archilochus' poetic te
narrative which echoe

27 Again, it 29
is An
valid excep
to arg
the story oflatinucci
the (2007
slaughter
of the these
specific two
Homeric stran
ve
comfortable thatwith the
a fragm
fixed v
interested poems
by the on the
paralleliT
(9) and the consolatory.
river's compl I
CieiVÓjiKVOC as I argue
V8KÚECCI. here
28 I agree might
with thehave d
inter
(2006), whoMoreover,
argues thattt
Achaeans throughout
themselves, the
broth
their own two halves.
familial relation

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 'ANTI-HERO'? 147

III. Flight and heroism in the Iliad and in Archilochus

Archilochus' strategy for portraying the Achaeans' defeat,
than is at first apparent. We should not interpret the new
counter-cultural reassessment of the ethics of retreat.30 I
to heroic ethics becomes apparent if we compare Archiloch
in the Homeric poems, where, as we shall see, flight is pre
Archilochus, then, does not reject Homer when he defends
ammunition for his 'anti-heroic' outlook. Rather, by refle
ities of flight in a heroic world, Archilochus appeals to the cu
to his argument and to evoke the ambiguous discourse on
Flight is never unproblematic in the Iliad, and there are
poet himself criticizing the desire to flee. Early in the p
army's resolve by appearing to advocate a withdrawal f
chaos serves to condemn Agamemnon's poor leadership
light for their immediate desire to retreat (2.142-54). Ag
(17-28), where he is roundly condemned by Diomedes
Diomedes (50-51) once again acts as a criticism of A
judgement. A similar pattern occurs in Book 14 (74-102) w
Odysseus objects. The association between flight and cowa
as when Nestor appeals to the Achaeans to stand firm for t
of aidôs (15.661-66). Perhaps the most clear-cut reflection
Odysseus, who muses on the problem of retreat when
(11.404-10); he concludes that 'it is cowards who abandon th
àjtoíxovtai 7toA¿|K>to, 108) and recalls the hero's obligati
These cases demonstrate the problematic nature of fligh
as Homerists have argued, we find a more nuanced pictur
more detail; moreover, as we shall see, the attitude which
Archilochus'.32 For a start, one should be cautious about
specific situations. Odysseus' stirring condemnation of fl
statement of heroic morality if the speech is taken out of
after this speech Odysseus does indeed retreat from
(11.487-88). We are surely not meant to condemn Odysseu
his courage by his isolated stand and his reluctance to wi
and cannot fight much longer (11.456-58). The other A
correct thing to do and do not suggest that he woul
(11.465-71). However, Odysseus' tactical withdrawal see
killed' morality he espoused earlier, and we should therefor
senting an agreed ethical standard within the poem.33 Mor
poem shows much less reluctance to flee in battle, withdr
criticisms (8.92-98).34

30 For Archilochus scholars describing

32 On Homeric flightflight as cf., for exam
(1975) 118-19;
'anti-Iliadic' cf. Seidensticker (1978) Cairns Barker
10-11; (1993) 69-79;and
Rinon (2008)
97-101.
Christensen (2006) 1 7-26: both these articles argue that
Archilochus' attitude to flight is33closer to98that
Rinon (2008) attemptsof the
to 'carefully demarcate
Odyssey than the Iliad. the line separating flight from retreat' (98), the latter
31 Cf. Barker and Christensen (2006)
being 24: 'Odysseus,
a less shameful activity. Yet Rinon 's own analysis
(99-101)
hesitating between fight or flight, demonstrates
discerns the the difficulty of making this
"correct"
choice for the Iliad and acts accordingly';
distinction, for inRinon
the absence(2008),
of certain clear signals,
such as
who argues that flight in the Iliad isdropping a shield
'basically anor index
turning your back, the
of cowardice and shame' (97). difference between flight and retreat may be grounded

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
148 SWIFT

The example which

between Diomedes an
his fear of being cal
Diomedes must not at
flight seriously, for
morality.36 Moreover
has told us that Zeus
him to withdraw (8.
Zeus' power and remi
despite his reluctance
the right (vai õfj xaôx
credit both that he re
the will of Zeus, and
his reputation.39 Inde
taunts as he contempl
he ultimately heeds (
on the one hand, a fe
lays one open to accu
and the futility of try
When we re-examine
nuities in the values e
willthink of you if y
(KoiKÓxr|xa Aiyeifv,
Nevertheless, if the g
justify flight (0soö K
glory that Hector wil
of putting others to fl
Telephus gains from

as much inserves
the eye
to of
foret
objective However,
criteria whi
(unless m
any case, be
even extreme,
flight can i
Nestor's advice
whichatthe
8.139-
god
he advises Diomedes
Kelly to 5
(2007) f
Ï7i7coi)c, so
139) transparen
and does no
presenting argument
it as a and
more salu
34 It is 38 See wheth
disputed Kelly
Diomedes orof Nestor's
simply sp
ignor
on 97-98. 39
Even See
if Cairns
oúô' é
Odysseus factors not
did which motivate Diomedes.
hear, rath
charge of cowardice,
40 Indeed, Homeric heroes frequently use divine will w
contrast histo justify retreat or flight: cf Menelaus at 17.97-101,
quickness to r
in rescuing Hector at 16.657-58, Diomedes at 5.817-23, Aeneas (of
Nestor.
35 Cf. reluctance to fight Achilles)
Whitman at 20.98-102. Even
(1958) 17
wordshereAgamenon's deceptive speech at 2.110-41 uses as its
suggest flig
unheroic option;
pretext see
the idea that the gods are against the Achaeans, al
comments and the reason
on thisthat the audience passage
can condemn his
'some did speech as the
not feelwrong advice isthemsel
that we know he is
such maxims dissembling.
as For analysis
"it of these is
speeches and their
disgr
36 Cf.
Primavesi
relationship to Homeric norms, see Janko(2000(1992) 159;
Scodel Gaskin (2001)
(2008) 159-60; Scodel (2008) 64.
142-43.
37 Fenik (1968) 222
41 For divine will as a justification for refusal to an
comment on
fight, see the
Fenik (1968) 164. unusual

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 'ANTI-HERO'? 149

a coward by yielding to divine will, so too Archilochus exp

cowardice if divine will is against you. Moreover, by drawi
gains authority for the view he espouses. The striking dif
poetry and in real life is its knowability: in the Iliad the au
intentions, yet this is also made clear to the characters by m
omens to direct divine intervention. Adrian Kelly notes th
'mind of Zeus' (Aiòc vóoc) are inevitably followed by a
reinforcing the audience's understanding of the gods' will an
will of the gods is something that can only be guessed at and
Archilochus claims that the contemporary warriors fled ôeo
the question as to how he can know that they fled due to div
or incompetence. By invoking a genre where the gods' will
aims to make the reasons for defeat appear more clear-c
hostility more convincing, and the retreat more acceptable.
Nevertheless, Archilochus' depiction of Telephus' rout of t
model - the motif of the hero triumphant in his aristei
audience's identification with the defeated Achaeans. We se
doing if we look at alternative poetic strategies for depict
description of Ajax retreating under pressure from the Tro
revealing case-study, for it demonstrates how a poet migh
situation where he wants the audience's sympathy to rema
aims to impress upon the audience the inevitability of the
broader context of Hector's routing of the Achaeans: hence t
of how to keep the focus on Ajax's bravery rather than on t
him. In order to prevent this, the poet avoids pairing Hecto
told that Hector avoids joining battle with Ajax (11.540
Hector, the audience's attention might have been drawn
remaining with Ajax; by keeping Hector out of the way, t
anonymous group of Trojan warriors, keeping the emotiona
As Ajax begins to withdraw, he is compared to a lion b
herdsmen (11.548-55). The lion simile reminds us of Ajax's
poet describes the scene in a way designed to highlight Ajax'
of comparison the reluctance with which the hero and lion with
itself (tetiriÓTi 0U|xc5v ... texirmévoc rjtop, 555-56).43 The p
another simile, comparing Ajax to a donkey (1 1.558-71). W
humour, it also emphasizes Ajax's superiority over the Tro
being compared to small boys, so feeble (vr|7tir|, 561) that th
poet again stresses the reluctance of Ajax's retreat: it is made
derly panic, but gives ground slowly, with many about-turn
still influential in holding back the Trojans (569-71). 44
Thus Homer uses a variety of narrative techniques to ret
to ensure that they remain impressed with his courage and
remains the emotional focus of the passage, and the Trojans, for
inferior. The contrast between Archilochus' poem and this
Archilochus' portrayal of Telephus is if we accept that the
also demonstrates that in the context of a defeat, boosting t

42 Kelly (2007) 173. of lions in similes, see Clarke (1995) 145-52.

43 For the withdrawal of the hero44 Cf.as a conventional
Hainsworth (1993) on 558-62.
moment for similes, cf. Scott (1974) 41-42. For the use

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
150 SWIFT

detract from one's glor

rival is present to ste
repeated reminders th
portrayal of the pani

TÓtpp' áÀÃoi Tpcöec 7tec

àcTiáaoi JtpoTÌ aeru, 7i

Then the rest of the Tr

the city was filled with

Like Archilochus' Ach

one another. Archil
conveying a similar to
the rout of the Troja

où yáp 7tcó ti Tpcõec áp

jtpOTpojiáSrçv (poßsovio
àX'' ět' ãp' ávOíexavro,

For the Trojans had not

still stood their ground,

Again, we need not c

these passages; it is su
perhaps one he was f
description of the pan
exceptional; so too in
of Telephus magnifice
The new Archilochus
values of heroic epic,
withdrawal in battle.
terms. Archilochus d
Telephus not to re-eva
of epic and to engag
engagement with this
which displays a far m
is careful to note tha
also find these theme
similarity to the new

45 Conversely,
seems Homeri
much m
prowess of the
an speaker's
opponent
Nestor on immediately
Ereuthalion (II.
emphasizes poem,
the as
power arg
of
Sthenelus anxiety
suggest about (
flight
the fragments
importance of the dea
def
victor; by Adesp. iamb.
implication p
glorious suggests
opponent risks that
gi
46 Obbink regularly.
(2005) 20-21 su
may have formed47 Cf West (2006) 12. I print here West's
part text with of
W, but this seems
his supplements. unlik

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 'ANTI-HERO'? 1 5 1

Kai xò jLièv cpuyeïv öxav 5rç[ %pecò tic, ola Kal xóxe
ávôpáciv Ksívoic xoA,co0ei[c 0eòc erccoxpuve cxpaxóv
5dc(I8V8cov Kojifjxa 7iai8[cov, ~ - ~~ x ~ - ~~
o'3 ce xoüx' f'ic%x>v£v ouös v[é|i8cíc écxiv, ácTiíSa
eoe arc' 8Í)8pyéa xiváÇac éxp[á7rr|c x - ~ -
Kai yáp áX/KijicoxépoDC céo Kaxaf^aßovxa ôsíjiaxa
xaüx' é7TT| ß0X,T| [c] 8 • 08O1)C yàp OÙK 8VÍk[t1C8V ßpoxoe*

Fleeing when [there is need, as at that time] angry with those me

enemy, o long-haired boy ... This did not disgrace you, and nor [is
off your well-wrought [shield] and [fled]. These fears have [caugh
For [a mortal] cannot conquer the gods.

Despite the fragmentary nature of the text, the poet clea

outlined by the new fragment: he stresses the power of the gods
(0soi)c yap oůk 8VÍk[t|C8v ßpoxoe, 11) and uses this to justify
the addressee needs reassuring that he has not been disgraced
nature of flight and the natural concern that by retreating o
of cowardice. This poem, therefore, like the new fragment,
importance of bravery in battle; as we have seen, this tensi
to be an established problem in heroic ethics.

IV. Breaking with Homer: Archilochus the anti-hero

It is therefore wrong to read the new Archilochus as a piece o
of epic values; rather, the poem shows a great deal of contin
also wrong to overlook the differences between Archilochus
language and values, the poem also points to how it falls shor
the Trojan War, and the morality associated with the heroic
in his audience's mind, yet these evocations demonstrate the
old and the world Archilochus in fact describes, creating a h
Archilochus' work.
The inglorious nature of Archilochus' world is encapsulated by his choice of the Telephus
myth, and it is this that explains the choice of Telephus rather than any other retreat during the
Trojan War. In the retreats of the Achaeans in the Iliad , Zeus's will is temporarily against the
Achaeans, but the audience knows that this is part of a wider picture and that they will eventually
be successful. Despite their setbacks, divine will ultimately favours the Achaeans and their
campaign will be a great and glorious one which will bring them eternal kleos. The crucial fact
about the Telephus myth, however, is that the Achaeans are in the wrong place, a point that
Archilochus makes explicit several times during the poem.48 We are reminded that the Achaean
expedition is against Troy ("IXiov sic ispf)v rjye |iaxr|co|isvo[DC, 15); Archilochus then returns to
the topic in order to further emphasize the Achaeans' folly. Not only are they in error, having
mistaken Mysia for Troy (cp]ávxo yàp ù'|/bruXov Tpcocov iiokiy sic[avaßaiveiv, 20), but the poet
also stresses that their expedition to Mysia is futile in its own right (y[á]xíjy ô's7ráx80V MvGÍSa
7n)po(pópo[v, 21) and explicitly criticizes the Achaeans for their folly (á(pp[aôí]r|i, 19). Thus the
Achaeans' bravery and Telephus' exceptional heroism are set against the absurdity that the battle
being fought is one which was never meant to happen, while the references to divine will only
confirm this further.

48 Thus whether or not Archilochus went on to tell Telephus' wounding does not affect the broader point
the myth of Telephus' wounding is irrelevant, for the about the mistaken nature of the Argive campaign: see
Achaeans still had to return to Greece in disgrace, so Mayer (2006) 16-17.

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 152 SWIFT

Read in this light, t

associated with typic
Achaeans are making
the 'much-resoundin
battles and the Troja
to exemplify the Ach
War (cp]ávxo yàp úv|/ú
and less glorious, bat
identity and the futi
the cramming of the
cxeívexo Kai [jteôíov
nearly always left un
clarify which plain h
river may well remin
heroic slaughter is th
sense of anticipation
sizes the mistake the A
This failure to live
describes the Achaea
(e]v0a [nJéyoc írveío
18-19). Since the Ach
from <xcppa8ir|), the
of a single man.50 T
from fierce warriors
drawn-out retreats o
defence, as Archiloch
only moments after
a further layer of h
common Homeric for
of the warriors.52 Y
horses, the effect is
snort, the sense in w
warrior 'breathing ba
portrays them in a s

49 The 52 For warriors

only times 'breathing menos' cf. II. 2.536,
when 3.8,
referring 11.508, 24.364; Od. 22.203. In all cases the formula to
specifically t
TpcoïKÔv, II.evokes the warriors' ferocity and their
10.11; commitment to
7i£Õíov
7C8ÔÍOV, II. battle: most famously at II. 3.8 where
23.464. In the Achaeans'
the f
is qualified, breathingis
it of menosto
is part of refer
their discipline, also to
{cf. 718ÔÍOV emphasizedxòby their silence (3.8) and their resolution to
ÂÀ,r|ïov,
qualificationstand is
by their comrades,
used and contrasted with the
dozens
Troy. Trojans' noisinesscan
7T8ÔÍOV and disorder. of cours
Odyssey , 53 West
and one(2006) 14 cites might
Aesch. Sept. 393 (taoc im
could have XaXivœv ¿oc Kaxac0|xaívcovused
been fiévei) as a parallel for horses
with
plain of snorting menos , but it isYet
Thebes. the subversion of here
the epic
serves to formula which makes Archilochus'
remind the usage humorous
audie
where they
rather thanthink, thus
grand, jiévoc rcveíovxec is a phrase commonly
hiehlieht one of the ooem's main themes. associated with humans behaving in a dignified and
50 Cf Obbink (2006) 8. ferocious way; conversely KaxacGjiaivcov indicates noisy
51 ai)xo[i le Kai Ï717101 is a hexameter formula: West panting or snorting, and therefore better encapsulates the
(2006) 14 cites//. 13.684 and 17.644. snorting noises made by the energetic horse.

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 'ANTI-HERO'? 153

of epic grandeur and ferocity, through to a description w

warriors in a wry and humorous light, and finally to the
fortunes.
Even the mythological world which Archilochus describes, then, falls short of our expecta-
tions of grandeur, for he is at pains to stress that while the Achaeans believe themselves to be
fighting the glorious Trojan War, they are in fact embroiled in a very different battle, and one
which stands out for the fact that it was never meant to happen (|i[á]xr]Y, 21). Although the
Battle of Mysia is part of the epic cycle (and hence part of the glorious heroic world), it stands
out for being a battle fought in error, by a group of heroes who believe themselves to be
besieging an entirely different city. This raises further questions about the paradeigmatic
function of the myth: for while it is introduced simply as an exemplum for flight in battle, the
problematic nature of the battle in the myth may give it further resonance. While we cannot
know the details of the contemporary situation Archilochus alludes to, it is tempting to
conclude that his choice of the Telephus myth is designed to cast aspersions on a contemporary
war.54 For both in choosing the Telephus story rather than the battles at Troy itself and in the
strategies he uses to present the myth, Archilochus presents a paradigm of a mistaken and
embarrassing campaign, and a battle fought for the wrong reasons. Moreover, by portraying
the Achaeans as convinced that they are participating in the Trojan War, yet foolishly mistaken
in that assumption, the poet perhaps undercuts and pokes fun at his own use of Homeric
material. For, as he implies, the contemporary soldiers who compare themselves to the great
Achaean heroes of old may be as foolish and mistaken as the Achaeans who mistook Mysia for
Troy.

V. Conclusion

A close examination of the new Archilochus, and similar passages in Homeric epic, demonstrates
that reading Archilochus as a straightforward subverter or affirmer of epic values is an oversim-
plification both of Archilochus' poetry and of Homer's. The new Archilochus fragment presents
a highly complex and ambivalent portrayal of flight: one which attempts to defend it by stressing
the inevitability of yielding to divine will, yet which also recognizes the potential loss of face
involved and the desirability of being the conqueror rather than the conquered. On analysis, this
attitude to flight is remarkably similar to that portrayed in the Iliad, where flight is never unprob-
lematic but is nevertheless regarded as the appropriate option when the gods are against you.
Thus Archilochus not only uses a paradigm which evokes heroic epic, but he does so in a way
which fundamentally conforms to epic values.
However, Archilochus also seeks to point out the discontinuity between the great and glorious
world of Homer and the world he describes: the Achaeans' battle in Mysia is an embarassing
mistake, not part of a campaign which will bring eternal glory. The Achaeans' conviction that
they are fighting the real Trojan War also adds to this sense of a degraded world, where aspira-
tions to behave like true epic heroes inevitably fall short. Within what appears to be a conso-
latory poem, we therefore find elements of mockery and abuse, as the contemporary campaign is
judged to be more like a Mysia than a Troy, and those who support it are as deluded as the
Achaeans in Mysia. Thus while the essential values of the poem are those of epic, the use of
these values confirms the gulf between the grand world of epic and the embarassing battle which
Archilochus describes. Archilochus evokes heroic morality in order to undercut its applicability:
while it is true that the Achaeans are right to flee since the gods are against them, we are also
reminded of their un-Iliadic folly for being in Mysia in the first place. The Achaeans are fated to
withdraw not because of a grand plan of Zeus, but because they have foolishly mistaken Mysia

54 Cf. Mayer (2006) 17.

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 154 SWIFT

for Troy. This discon

poem's central point:
common sense for me
traditional dichotomy
by demonstrating the
use Archilochus make

Bibliography
Aloni, A. and Iannucci, A. (2007) L'elegia greca e V epigramma dalle origini al V secolo. Con un '
appendice sulla ' nuova ' elegia di Archiloco (Florence)
Andersen, 0. (1978) Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias (Oslo)
Austin, N. (1966) 'The function of digressions in the Iliad', GRBS 7, 295-312
Barker, E.T.E. and Christensen, J.P. (2006) 'Flight club: the new Archilochus fragment and its resonance
with Homeric epic', MD 57, 9-41
Bernsdorff, H. (2006) 'Halbgötter auf der Flucht - Zu P. Oxy. 4708 (Archilochos?)', ZPE 158, 1-7
Bowie, E. (2010) 'Historical narrative in archaic and early classical Greek elegy', in D. Konstan and K.A.
Raaflaub (eds), Epic and History (Maiden MA) 145-66
Burgess, J.S. (2001) The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle (Baltimore)
Burnett, A.P. (1983) Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho (London)
Cairns, D.L. (1993) Aidos: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature
(Oxford)
Campbell, D.A. (1976) 'The language of the new Archilochus', Arethusa 9.2, 151-57
Clarke, M. (1995) 'Between lions and men: images of the hero in the Iliad' GRBS 36.2, 137-59
Corrêa, P. (1998) Armas e varões: a guerra na lírica de Arquíloco (São Paulo)
D'Alessio, G.B. (2006) 'Note al nuovo Archiloco (P.Oxy LXIX 4708)', ZPE 156, 19-22
Dihle, A. (1969) 'Die Inschrift vom Nestor-Becher aus Ischia', Hermes 97, 257-61
Dover, K.J. (1964) 'The poetry of Archilochus', in J. Poilloux, N.M. Kontoleon, A. Scherer, D. Page, K.J.
Dover, W. Bühler, E.K.H. Wistrand, B. Snell, O. Reverdin and M. Treu (eds), Archiloque: sept exposés
et discussions (Geneva) 183-222
Faraone, C.A. (1996) 'Taking the "Nestor's cup inscription" seriously: erotic magic and conditional curses
in the earliest inscribed hexameters', ClAnt 15.1, 77-112
Fenik, B. (1968) Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle
Description (Stuttgart)
Fowler, R.L. (1987) The Nature of Early Greek Lyric: Three Preliminary Studies (Toronto)
FraenkeL H. H 95 lì Dichtune und Philosonhie des frühen Griechentums (New York)
Ga
Ga
to
Ga
Ho
Ha
Henrv. W.B. (2006) 'Archilochus. POxv. 4708 fr. 1.18-21'. ZPE 156. 14

Howie, J.G. (1995) 'The Iliad as exemplum', in 0. Andersen and M. Dickie (eds), Homer s World (Berg
141-73

Janko, R. (ed.) (1992) The Iliad: A Commentary. IV: Books 13-16 (Cambridge)
Kelly, A. (2007) A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII (Oxford)
Kirk, G.S. (ed.) (1985) The Iliad: A Commentary. I: Books 1-4 (Cambridge)
- (ed.) (1990) The. Iliad: A Commentary. II: Books 5-8 (Cambridge)
Krischer, T. (1971) Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik (Munich)
Létoublon, F. (2008) 'Archiloque et 1 '"encyclopédie" homérique', Pallas 77, 51-62
Lünne. W. (2006) 'Zum neuen Archilochos (P.Oxv. 4708) , ZPE 155, 1-4
rr ? ' / x * ' '

Magnelli

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHILOCHU S THE 6 ANTI-HERO'? 1 55

Mayer, P. (2006) 'Krieg aus Versehen? Zur Funktion und Aussag

Archilochos (P.Oxy. 4708, fr. 1)', ZPE 157, 15-18
Morris, I. (1996) 'The strong principle of equality and the Archaic or
and C. Hedrick (eds), Dëmokratia : A Conversation on Democracie
19-48

Nicolosi, A. (2006) 'Sul nuovo Archiloco elegiaco {P.Oxy. 4708 fr. 1)', Eikasmos 17, 25-31
- (2007) Ipponate, epodi di Strasburgo - Archiloco, epodi di Colonia (con un ' appendice su P.Oxy. LXIX
4708) (Eikasmos 14) (Bologna)
Nobili, C. (2009) 'Tra epos ed elegia: il nuovo Archiloco', Maia 61.2, 229^19
Obbink, D. (2005) '4708. Archilochus, elegies (more of VI 854 and XXX 2507)', The Oxyrhynchus Papyri
LXIX, 19-42
- (2006) 'A new Archilochus poem', ZPE 156, 1-9
Page, D. (1964) 'Archilochus and the oral tradition', in J. Poilloux, N.M. Kontoleon, A. Scherer, D. Page,
K.J. Dover, W. Bühler, E.K.H. Wistrand, B. Snell, O. Reverdin and M. Treu (eds), Archiloque: sept
exposés et discussions (Geneva) 119-79
Powell, B.P. (1989) 'Why was the Greek alphabet invented? The epigraphical evidence', ClAnt 8.2, 321-50
Primavesi, O. (2000) 'Nestors Erzählungen. Die Variationen eines rhetorischen Überzeugungsmittels in der
Ilias' in C. Neumeister and W. Räck (eds), Rede und Redner: Bewertung und Darstellung in den
antiken Kulturen (Möhnesee) 45-64
Rankin, H.D. (1977) Archilochus of Paros (Park Ridge NJ)
Redfield, J.M. (1975) Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago)
Rinon, Y. (2008) Homer and the Dual Model of the Tragic (Ann Arbor)
Roisman, H. (2005) 'Nestor the good counsellor', CQ 55, 17-38
Rougier-Blanc, S. (2008) 'L' interpretation politique et sociale de l'oeuvre d'Archiloque: bilan et perspec-
tives', Pallas 77, 15-31
Russo, J. (1974) 'The inner man in Archilochus and the Odyssey ', GRBS 15.2, 139-52
Riiter, J. and Matthiessen, K. (1969) 'Zum Nestorbecher von Pithekussai', ZPE 2, 231-55
Scherer, A. (1964) 'Die Sprache des Archilochos', in J. Poilloux, N.M. Kontoleon, A. Scherer, D. Page,
K.J. Dover, W. Bühler, E.K.H. Wistrand, B. Snell, O. Reverdin and M. Treu (eds), Archiloque : sept
exposés et discussions (Geneva) 89-116
Scodel, R. (2008) Epic Facework: Self presentation and Social Interaction in Homer (Swansea)
Scott, W.C. (1974) The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile (Leiden)
Seidensticker, B. (1978) 'Archilochus and Odysseus', GRBS 19.1, 5-22
Snell, B. (tr. T.G. Rosenmeyer) (1953) The Discovery of the Mind : The Greek Origins of European Thought
(Oxford)
Tammaro, V. (2006) 'Notereile al nuovo Archiloco (P.Oxv. 4708)', Eikasmos 17, 33-35
Tarditi, G. (1956) 'Motivi epici nei tetrametri di Archiloco', PP 13, 26-46
- (ed.) (1968) Archilochus : Fragmenta (Rome)
Toohey, P. (1988) 'Archilochus' general (fr. 114W): where did he come from?', Eranos 86, 1-14
Treu, M. (1968) Von Homer zu Lyrik (Munich)
West, M.L. (2006) 'Archilochus and Telephos', ZPE 156, 11-17
West, S. (1994) 'Nestor's bewitching cup', ZPE 101, 9-15
Whitman, C.H. (1958) Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge MA)
Willcock, M.M. (1964) 'Mythological paradeigma in the Iliad' CQ 14.2, 141-54

This content downloaded from 143.54.202.215 on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:35:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms