Philologus 2014; 58(1): 10–25
Alexander Nikolaev
An Epic Party?
Sober Thoughts on νηφέμεν (Archil. Fr. 4 W.2)
Abstract: This paper argues that the Aeolic inf. νηφέμεν, used instead of expected
νήφειν at the beginning of the pentameter verse (where a contracted biceps is
admissible), should be viewed as modeled on πινέμεν (Hes. Op. 592, construed
with αἴθοπα οἶνον): the combination of the high-flown ending, best known from
the epic dialect, with a root νηφ- that otherwise belongs to the colloquial
language must have both produced a comic effect in the context of an invitation
to get drunk on duty and served as an allusion to the midsummer picnic scene in
Hesiod.
Keywords: mock-epic, allusion, dialect forms, Archilochus, Hesiod, Homer
DOI 10.1515/phil-2014-0002
ἀλλ’ ἄγε σὺν κώ˾θωνι θοῆς διὰ σέλματα νηὸς
φοίτα καὶ κοίλ˾ων πώματ’ ἄφελκε κάδων,
ἄγρει δ’ οἶνον ˾ἐρυθρὸν ἀπὸ τρυγός· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡμεῖς
νηφέμεν ˾ἐν φυλακῆι τῆιδε δυνησόμεθα.
6
But come, make many a trip with a cup through the thwarts of the swift ship,
pull off the covers of the hollow casks, and draw the red wine from the lees;
we won’t be able to stay sober on this watch1.
1. Athenaeus, who quotes lines 6–9 of the fragment for the use of κώθων ‘cup’ has
νήφειν μὲν in the last line, which Musurus emended into νήφειν ἐν, adopted by
most subsequent editors. However, P. Oxy. 854 gives a different reading: even
though the letters are mutilated for the most part2, the form clearly shows an
accent on the second syllable, which must have been the main reason why
1 Here and in the passages that follow translations have been taken from the relevant volume of
the Loeb Classical Library.
2 Digital images can be found at http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk.
Alexander Nikolaev: Boston University, Department of Classical Studies, 745 Commonwealth
avenue, Boston MA, 02215 USA, E ˗ Mail: [email protected]
 
 
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
11
M. L. West in his edition of iambic and elegiac poets admitted νηφέμεν in his text.
As later joins have made clear (P. Oxy. 2507 and 4708), this papyrus roll contained an extensive critical edition, equipped with coronides, paragraphoi, accents, and marginal critical signs; the text does not otherwise show mistakes and
is unlikely to have been produced by a careless scribe who would place a wrong
accent over such a familiar form as the present infinitive (*νηφείν instead of
νήφειν). Athenaeus’ version νήφειν μὲν could be an oral variant, viz. a misquotation, or simply a scribal error, the source of which is entirely clear if the original
text had νηφέμεν ἐν3.
West’s solution is very plausible, but neither he nor later commentators have
discussed the problem that arises from adopting a non-Ionic infinitive form into
Archilochus’ text4. Even though fr. 4 is written in elegiac distich and elegy admits
occasional epicisms (whether or not solely because of the dactylic meter), νηφέμεν
cannot be an epic reminiscence, since there is nothing to reminisce: the form is not
attested elsewhere. Moreover, neither the infinitive nor any other form of the verb
νήφω ‘to be sober’ is likely to have been known to Archilochus from a lost epic
poem because this verb, hardly found outside sympotiac poetry and comedy and
completely lacking in the epic language, was anything but a lofty word5. Granted
3 W. Henry’s attempt to restore xνηφόνες (1998, 94 n. 4) and his arguments in favor of the original
oxytonesis in νήφων do not stand scrutiny in the light of what we know about the origin of νήφων:
as Weiss 1994 has shown, the word originated in a possessive compound *n̥‑h1gwh-ōn ‘without
drinking’ and all such compounds in Greek are barytone, cf. ἀπείρων, ἀνήνωρ, ἄφρων, etc.
Henry’s reference to κατηφόνες ‘downcasts’ (Il. 24. 253) and κολοφών ‘summit’ has no relevance
to the present case: κατηφών is not deverbal, but rather a doublet of κατηφής (cf. εὐμαρής
‘bringing ease’ vs. PN Εὐμάρων with an accent shift characteristic of proper names), derived from
*κατηφός with a “personifying” -ων- suffix (on the etymology see Blanc 1988), while κολοφών is
similarly based on *κολοφός where ‑φό‑ is a suffix (< *kl ̥h3-bho-, see García Ramón apud Vine
2006, 511 n. 40).
4 E. g. Gerber (1981) 9 duly noted that infinitives in -έμεν or -έμεναι are not found elsewhere in the
remains of Archilochus, but did not elaborate on this observation; similarly, in his review of
West’s edition Young (1973) 222 signaled and commended the choice of the dialectal form νηφέμεν, but did not seem to appreciate the conundrum. Adkins (1985) 215 limits himself to informing
the reader about manuscript variants, without discussing the implications of different editorial
choices.
5 That νήφω is a lowly verb has been noticed before, e.g. Monaco (1960) 19 (“verbo d’uso
commune e non poetico”); Romano (1974) 77 and da Cunha Corrêa (2009) 109, but the morphological problem at hand has not been commented upon. The argument above is not countered by
the following passage from Ps. Longinus (Subl. 34. 4. 1): ἀλλ’ ἐπειδήπερ, οἶμαι, τὰ μὲν θατέρου
καλά, καὶ εἰ πολλὰ ὅμως ἀμεγέθη, καρδίῃ νήφοντος ἀργὰ καὶ τὸν ἀκροατὴν ἠρεμεῖν ἐῶντα (οὐδεὶς
γοῦν Ὑπερείδην ἀναγινώσκων φοβεῖται). “The beauties of Hyperides, however numerous, are
devoid of greatness, they produce no effect ‘on a sober man’s heart,’ and allow the hearer to rest
unmoved (who feels fear when he reads Hyperides?).” The Ionic form καρδίῃ (not Attic καρδίᾳ)
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
12
Alexander Nikolaev
the reading νηφέμεν is correct, one would like to know the reason why an Aeolic
form appears in Archilochus’ text6.
2. It is important to emphasize that a thematic infinitive in -έμεν does not
come entirely for free in the language of elegy. Differently from the situation in
Homer and Hesiod, where these forms serve as useful metrical alternatives for the
ending -ειν7, the reason for choosing the form νηφέμεν over νήφειν in our case
could not have been metrical: in elegiac distich a contracted biceps is entirely
admissible in the first colon of the pentameter and there is no shortage of
examples in Archilochus8.
In the very few cases where we find thematic infinitives in -έμεν in elegists,
they can be shown to come directly from epic or be due to epic influence. In
fact, West (1974: 106) lists only two such forms9: one is ἐχέμεν in the Theognidea,
that at least at 924 is clearly owed to Hes. Op. 457 (which likewise contains
μελέτην ἐχέμεν ‘take care’), and the other is the future infinitive γηρᾱσέμεν
(Simon. 20. 7 W.2 = 7. 12 G.–P.2) which presents a more complicated case. Here is
the text:
οὔτε γὰρ ἐλπίδ’ ἔχει γηρασέμεν οὔτε θανεῖσθαι
He has no expectation of old age or death10
has led students of Longinus to assume that καρδίῃ νήφοντος ἀργὰ is a poetic quotation (as first
argued by Ellis 1894–1896, 387; Russell 1970, 164 thinks of Anacreon; West prints the line as
Adesp. iamb. 39), but this is hardly necessary and there does not have to be a direct connection
with the proverb τὸ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ νήφοντος ἐπὶ τῆς γλώττης ἐστὶ τοῦ μεθύοντος (Plu. De garr.
503).
6 Among all dialects of Ancient Greek, only in mainland Aeolic was the originally athematic
infinitive suffix ‑μεν transferred to thematic stems: from epichoric Aeolic one may compare East
Thessalian ὑπαρχεμεν, μενεμεν, ἀγαγεμεν, Boeotian ἀγιρεμεν, καταβαλλεμεν, πεμπεμεν, and an
infinitive φ]ερεμεν is found in Corinna. See Thumb/Scherer (1959) 43; 71; Blümel (1982) 208–210.
7 The suffix of Aeolic infinitives in -έμεν for the most part occupies the biceps of the fourth or the
fifth foot (before a vowel), conforming to the well-known preference for a dactylic word-end before
the bucolic dieresis and before the sixth foot. By using these Aeolic forms the bards were able to
avoid Ionic ‑ειν that would fill the biceps, resulting in an undesirable spondaic fourth (or fifth)
foot.
8 Archil. 1. 2 καὶ Μουσέ͜ων ἐρατόν |; 3. 4 ταύτης γὰρ κεῖνοι | ; 9. 10 εἰ κείνου κεφαλήν | ; 11. 2 θήσω
τερπωλάς | ; 14. 2 οὐδεὶς ἂν μάλα πόλλ’ |. See West (1982) 45.
9 κρυπτέμεν<αι δ’> recently conjectured by Gärtner (2008) 1 in Archil. fr. 12 W.2 instead of
transmitted κρύπτομεν appears particularly risky in view of the argument developed in this paper
(even though an infinitive would be entirely conceivable, see West 1974, 118). Bossi’s (1997) 37
κρυπτομέν<ων> is a viable alternative.
10 Here and below the translation of Simon. 20 W.2 follows Sider (2001) 273.
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
13
This time a purely metrical explanation appears entirely plausible (the infinitive
in ‑έμεν helps to avoid a spondaic fourth foot with diaeresis) and one might argue
that Simonides simply used an epic form as a convenient metrical variant11. But in
my opinion, thematic considerations, too, must have played a role, since there are
reasons to think that Simonides could intentionally be striking a Homeric note in
this particular elegy. With the publication of P. Oxy. 3965 in 1992 it became clear
that the poem continues by a recommendation to consider something Homer once
said (or, less likely, did):
– ᴗᴗ –] φράζεο δὲ παλα[ιοτέρου λόγον ἀνδρός
ἦ λήθην] γλώσσης ἔκφυγ’ Ὅμηρ[ος ᴗ ᴗ12
13
Consider [the account of the man of] old:
Homer escaped [the forgetting of his words]
Moreover, it is likely that the same poem included an actual quote from Homer,
namely, οἵη περ φύλλων γενεή, τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν (Il. 6. 146 = Simon. 19. 2 W.2 =
7. 2 G.–P.); note that Stobaeus presents frr. 19 and 20. 5–12 as one continuous
passage13. In the light of this explicit Homeric echo in this poem the assumption
would no longer be outlandish that Simonides coined the form γηρᾱσέμεν in
order to set the right tone and prepare his audience for a Homeric reminiscence
which they would immediately recognize14.
11 Future infinitives in ‑σέμεν are amply attested in Homer: 44 in the Iliad, 23 in the Odyssey.
12 Text printed in W.2 West (1993) 10 gives a slightly different conjectural restoration:
– ᴗᴗ –] φράζεο δὲ παλα[ιγενέος ἔπος ἀνδρός·
ἦ λήθην] γλώσσης ἔκφυγ’ Ὅμηρ[ος ἑῆς
13 West (1993) 10–11 suggested, following Parsons, that fr. 19 contains the actual Homeric words
that the poet urges his audience to pay heed to and as such should follow fr. 20 rather than
precede it (accepted by Gigante 1994, 61; Sider 2001, 279 is skeptical); according to West’s
reconstruction, Simonides is contrasting Homer’s art with that of contemporary poetry, performed
in symposia (l. 17 ἐν θα̣λ̣ίῃσι ̣ ‘in feasts’), full of lies and pliability (l. 16 ψυ̣δρῇς ‘false’, l. 18
ἐϋστρέπτων ‘well-plaited’).
14 The non-Ionic long [ᾱ] in γηρᾱσέμεν which troubled Bergk (1882) 426 who contemplated
γηρησέμεν and West (1974) 78 who called the form a special case, has nothing to do with the
dialectal problem at hand and is in fact unproblematic. The same [ᾱ] recurs in Ionic in other verbal
forms: perf. γεγήρᾱκα, fut. γηρᾱσω and γηρᾱσομαι, aor. ἐγήρᾱσα and verbal adjective ἀγήρᾱτος.
All these forms are based on aor. ἐγήρᾱ that was perceived by the speakers as a root aorist of the
type ἔδῡ or ἔβη made from a long-vowel root: the aor. ἐγήρᾱσα can therefore be viewed as a
sigmatic extension of ἐγήρᾱ, on par with κατέδῡ : κατέδῡσε, ἔβη : ἔβησε or ἐβίω : ἐβίωσε (see
Schmidt 1968, 15–16 with references to earlier works).
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
14
Alexander Nikolaev
One more form of the same kind may be discussed here, even though it is
found in a piece from a different genre: the aorist infinitive εὑρέμεν is used in a
hyporcheme of contested authorship15; Simonides appears a likely candidate
(Simon. 255.6 Poltera = Pi. fr. 107a. 5 S–M)16:
(Πελασγὸν ἵππον ἢ κύνα
Ἀμυκλαίαν …)
οἷος <δ’> ἀνὰ Δώτιον ἀνθεμόεν
πεδίον πέταται θάνατον κεράστᾳ
εὑρέμεν μανίων ἐλάφῳ·
5
(The Pelasgian horse or dog from Amyklai)
even as it flies over the flowery
Dotian plain, enraged, in order to find death
for the horned deer.
It is a Thessalian horse that pursues the deer17 and it is this context that may have
triggered the use of a specifically Thessalian form, familiar to Simonides who
likely lived at the courts of the ruling families of Thessaly for many years18. This
dialect awareness might appear striking, but is in fact no more so than the Homeric use of unassibilated βωτιάνειρα applied solely to Thessalian Phthia, the homeland of Achilles19 or the use of Aeolic φήρ in Homeric and post-Homeric poetry20
as a designation of Centaurs, endemic to the mountains of Thessaly. As in the
case of γηρᾱσέμεν, the use of εὑρέμεν is determined by a combination of metrical
and contextual factors.
15 On the authorship of this variously attributed poem see Poltera (2003) 211–214 who brings
forth a new argument in favor of ascription to Simonides (following Boeckh) and not Pindar
(Wilamowitz 1922, 502–505) or Bacchylides (Reinach 1898, 416–418).
16 Poltera’s colometry is different from Maehler’s; for other differences from Maehler’s text
(κεράστᾳ instead of κεροέσσᾳ, μανίων instead of ματεῖσ’) see Gallavotti (1962) 39–40.
17 The subject of πέταται has been traditionally understood as the horse and not the dog (see
Poltera 2008, 432); the verb πέτα/ομαι in metaphorical meaning ‘to move swiftly’ is frequently
applied to horses, cf. Il. 23. 372 ~ 449 ἵπποις· οἳ δ’ ἐπέτοντο κονίοντες πεδίοιο ‘and the horses flew
through the dust of the flat land’ or the verse final formula τὼ δ’ οὐκ ἄκοντε πετέσθην ‘and
they winged their way unreluctant’ that occurs in early Greek epic eleven times. From lyric poetry
one may compare Bacch. 1. 19–20 ἔζευξεν ὑφ’ ἅρ]μασιν ἵππου[ς· / οἱ δὲ π]έτοντο ‘he yoked his
horses under his chariot and they flew’.
18 See Molyneux (1992) 117–145. In addition to the evidence assembled by Molyneux, note that
the name of Echecratidas, the ruler of Thessaly and the father of Antiochus for whom Simonides
wrote a threnos (PMG 528), is attested in fr. 22 W.2 (see recently Livrea 2006).
19 See Forssman (1991) 271.
20 Including Simonides (PMG 587).
 
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
15
Let us review the argument thus far. Aeolic infinitives in ‑έμεν are as a rule
avoided in early elegiac poetry, so the form νηφέμεν in Archil. fr. 4. 9 requires an
explanation. Νήφω is a colloquial verb, so the form cannot be put down as an
epicism. The form cannot simply be a metrical variant, since Ionic νήφειν would
be unimpeachable in the first part of a pentameter colon. The rare instances of
Aeolic infinitives -έμεν in elegy can be shown to have been triggered by dependency on epic models of one kind or another. Assuming that the form is Archilochus’ own coinage, therefore, the question is whether the poet intended the
final distich of fr. 4 to resonate with the epic tradition; and if so, whether it was a
specific allusion to a fixed text or a reference to a broader tradition21.
3. Before we can answer these questions, we should briefly address two more
non-Ionic (viz. epic-Aeolic) elements in the language of Archilochus: the apocope
of preverbs and the dative plural in ‑εσσι. The former is represented by one
example, the aorist κάλλιπον (fr. 5,2 W.2). Why did Archilochus use it? Is it
because “he has no choice; his technique is wholly that of the oral Epic”,22 and he
simply chose the form that was most convenient to open the second colon of the
pentameter line? Probably not. Despite Treu’s skepticism (1979, 192), I agree with
Letoublon (2008) 56 that what we find here is mock-epic23. While Archilochus is
certainly not trying to compose his poem in the epic dialect24, he engages with
epic material and epic themes; by intentionally choosing a Homeric form (κάλλιπον is attested 11 times in Homer) he emphasizes his antagonistic relationship to
the tradition of epic poetry, while possibly creating an additional comic effect25.
As for the Aeolic datives in -εσσι, apart from ἁλὸς ἐν πελάγεσσι (8.1), a phrase
borrowed from the epic tradition26, we find the form τηλεθάεσσι in the Cologne
Epode, a poem that has several other examples where humor results from the
usage of elevated epic vocabulary in sexual context27.
21 See Barker/Christensen (2006) for the notion of traditional referentiality.
22 Page (1964) 133.
23 For the notion see Harvey (1947); Fowler (1987). Letoublon, just as Jaeger (1934) 165 before
her, actually uses the word i r o n y . Compare Barker/Christensen (2006).
24 Note the absence of many characteristic epic-Aeolic forms in the poem, e.g. as κε, ‑οιο, θεά.
25 Anderson (2008) discusses another interesting detail in this fragment and reaches conclusions
that seem to support Letoublon’s interpretation: the fact that the protagonist of the poem did not
toss his shield away to flee, but left it by a bush (παρὰ θάμνῳ) must have added a comic dimension
to the poem.
26 ἁλὸς ἐν πελάγεσσι is found at Od. 5. 335; Hymn. Ap. 73; Hymn. Diosc. 15.
27 See Fowler (1987) 41–42: l. 3 καί σε θυμὸς ἰθύει, l. 7 εἶδος ἄμωμον, l. 11–12 ἐσθλῆς […] γυναικός,
l. 12 ἣν νῦν γῆ κατ’ εὐρώεσσ’ ἔ[χει, l. 23 ἐς ποη]φόρους / κ]ήπους.
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
16
Alexander Nikolaev
Archil. 196a. 42–44 W.2:
τοσ]αῦτ’ ἐφώνε͜ον· παρθένον δ’ ἐν ἄνθε[σιν
τηλ]εθάεσσι λαβών
ἔκλινα·
So much I said. I took the maiden
and laid her down in the blooming flowers.
Making this case more interesting than κάλλιπον is the fact that τηλεθάεσσι is not
simply an epicism, or, rather, not an epicism at all: the epic form is the participle
τηλεθάων ‘flourishing, blooming’28. τηλεθάεσσι has a short vowel before the ending ‑εσσι (carefully noted as such on the papyrus), which has been a source of
major confusion for the commentators: the form was mechanically derived from a
nominative *τηλεθᾰ́εις with an original suffix *‑u̯ ent-, an adjective of the type that
in Greek is normally formed from ā- or o-stems, rarely from s-stems. Neither of
these derivational patterns would elicit the purported *τηλεθᾰ́εις: a second
declension noun would not provide the right vowel timbre (στόνος → στονόεις),
while a first declension noun would fail to provide the right quantity, since the
derivatives of ā-stems keep their long vowel intact. The expected Ionic form
would therefore have been either *τηλεθήεις (cf. τιμήεις < *tīmāu̯ ent- ← τιμή) or
*τηλεθέεις with later prevocalic shortening (cf. ἠχέεντα (Archil. fr. 122.8 W.2)
< *ę̄khĕnt- < *u̯ ǣkhǣu̯ ent- < *u̯ākhāu̯ ent- ← ἠχή)29.
It is also important to note that an expectable Ionic uncontracted dative plural
*τηλεθάουσι30 and Archilochus’ “epic” τηλεθάεσσι are metrically equivalent. This
observation combined with the preceding one makes it clear that τηλεθάεσσι and
νηφέμεν are birds of a feather: both look like epic forms, neither is explicable by
metrical reasons alone and, as we will see momentarily, neither could belong to
any spoken dialect.
But how exactly is τηλεθάεσσι formed? Scholars who noticed the problem of
the short -ᾰ- preferred to circumvent it by listing several alleged exceptions to the
rule that warrants either a long ‑ᾱ/η‑ or an -ο- before the suffix *‑u̯ent-31. The
28 The form is also attested as distracted τηλεθόων.
29 A noun *τηλεθή is not attested, perhaps, by accident, but this is not necessarily a problem: in
theory, a speaker of Greek could derive *τηλεθήεις directly from the verb (*)τηλεθάω, since
denominative verbs in ‑άω, themselves derived from ā-stems, often coexisted with adjectives in
*-ᾱεις (τιμή : τιμάω : τιμήεις, αὐδή : αὐδάω : αὐδήεις, etc., see Risch 1974, 154).
30 τηλεθάουσι was independently conjectured here by Kamerbeek (1976) 125 and Gallavotti
(1973–74) 28, but it is hard to see how the presumed corruption could have taken place.
31 Degani (1974) 126 n. 8; Risch (1975) 224–225.
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
17
authority of these scholars, in particular, of the linguist E. Risch, must have led
students of Archilochus to the belief that there was no problem at all32. But the
alleged examples of ‑ᾰεις seem not to have been examined with sufficient care: in
fact, all of them are either voces nihili or products of analogies that would not
produce *τηλεθᾰ́εις33. The Archilochean form thus remains completely isolated.
32 In a recent linguistic commentary on the poem Risch is cited as the author of a definitive
explanation (Colvin 2007, 209), but ironically he is credited with a solution via analogy which is in
fact due to Ruijgh (see below, n. 35).
33 According to Risch (1975) 224 “-άεις mit kurzem α [ist] nur spärlich bezeugt” in καιετᾰ́εις,
χαιτᾰ́εις, ὑψικρανᾰ́εις, εὐνᾰ́εις, γανᾰ́εις and (‑)φᾰ́εις. (1) καιετάεσσαν ‘rich in mint’, given by the
dictionaries as Zenodotus’ reading at Od. 4. 1 for κητώεσσαν of the paradosis (so printed by Dindorf
after Eustath. 1478. 38), should be corrected to καιτάεσσαν (with ᾱ): this is the reading actually
found both in the mss. of the HMQR scholia and in P. Oxy. 2377R.6 containing the verse from
Callimachus’ Hecale quoted by Zenodotus (fr. 639 Pfeiffer = fr. 47 Hollis = SH 286), see Rengakos
(1992) 27. An Ionic καιτήεσσα corresponding to Doric καιτάεσσα probably lurks behind Nicander’s
καλάμινθον χαιτήεσσαν (Th. 60; see Cazzaniga 1963). (2) χαιτάεσσα ‘long-maned’ is transmitted at
Ael. H. A. 16. 24 in a quote from Semon. 7. 57 W.2 where Meineke’s (1830) 63 conjecture χαιτέεσσ’ is
almost certainly right from the viewpoint of textual criticism (the mss. of the only other source for
Semonides’ passage, Stob. 4. 22. 193, have χαιτήεις and χαιτείσ’), meter (a short vowel is required
before ‑εσσ’) and linguistics (a prevocalic shortening in a properly formed form χαιτήεσσα, cf.
τελέεντα Tyrt. 4. 2 and Πετρέεντος Inscr. v. Magnesia 116. 37). The origin of Aelian’s hyper-Attic
variant χαιτάεσσα can be explained in the following way: the reading of the archetype of Historia
Animalium seems to have been not ἁβρὴ χαιτάεσσ’, but ἁβρὰ χαιτάεσσ’ (see Jacobs 1832, 549 for the
mss. readings). Since Aelian, renowned and commended for his Atticismus, used an Attic form of
the first adjective, he may just as well have wanted to atticize the second one: the word for ‘mane’
was of course χαίτη both in Attic and Ionic, but since 1) adjectives in ‑ήεις > ‑έεις often coexisted
with denominative verbs in ‑άω and 2) corresponding verbs in Ionic are mostly verbs in ‑έω, the
relation between Attic adjectives in ‑άεις and Ionic adjectives in ‑έεις (e. g. ἐλαιάεις vs. ἐλαιέεις)
could have been reinterpreted as the same that obtains between Attic νικάω and Ionic νικέω, and as
a result, Ionic χαιτέεις could engender a hyper-Attic χαιτάεις. (3) ὑψικραν[ά]εσσα ‘high rugged’ is
known from a papyrus commentary on a piece by Antimachus of Colophon (Antim. fr. 113 Matthews
= 188 Wyss); the letter preceding the suffix ‑εσσα on the papyrus is mutilated. There is no *κράνη
from which ‑κρᾰνᾰεις could have been derived. Rather, Antimachus’ hapax is an extended form of
the poetic word κρᾰνᾰός ‘rocky’, a metrical Streckform (cf. Homeric φαιδιμόεντες, αἰπήεσσαν or
μεσήεις). The expected shape of the adjective is thus *(ὑψι)κρᾰνᾰοεις and not *(ὑψι)κρᾰνᾰεις; the
word is thus irrelevant for the present discussion. *-κρᾰνᾰοεντ‑ with a tribrach became *‑κρᾰνᾰεντ‑
through hyphaeresis (compare *δενδρεοεντ- ‘rich in trees’ > *δενδρεεντ- reshaped into δενδρηεντin order to avoid a cretic shape), and the word could be employed in hexameter as ῡψῑκρᾰνᾰε̄σσ(the commentator insists that the word should be spelled together, and muta cum liquida word
internally always makes position in Antimachus). 4. εὐναεις (accent uncertain) is a hapax at Aesch.
fr. 44. 3 Radt ὄμβρος δ’ ἀπ’ †εὐναέντος† οὐρανοῦ πεσών / ἔκυσε γαῖαν (εὐνάεντος Athen. 13. 73
(600Α), cod. A : εὐνάοντος cod. C sec. m., Eusth. ad Il. 978. 25). This epithet of the sky does not have
to have anything to do with εὐνή ‘bed’ and ἱερός γάμος between the earth and the sky; it may rather
have meant simply ‘fair flowing’ and be a participle from an intransitive aorist νάην, analogically
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
18
Alexander Nikolaev
In my opinion, we should take the form τηλεθᾰ́εσσι at face value, namely, as
a nonce form, created by the poet himself. Assuming that Archilochus’ intention
was for the entire seduction scene to have an epic flavor34, something that the
vernacular form *τηλεθῶσι would be unlikely to convey, it can be argued that
τηλεθᾰ́εσσι is an artificial morphological creation. This solution was put forth by
C. Ruijgh35, who pointed out, quite correctly, that a stem like ἠχέεντ- – thanks to
the vowel changes in Ionic – could be perceived as derived directly from the verb
of ἠχέω, and therefore a four-part analogy could have generated a form in ‑ᾰ́εντ‑
on the basis of a verb in ‑ᾰ́ε/ο‑: ἠχέω : ἠχέεις = θηλεθάω : X, X = θηλεθάεις.
Archilochus’ τηλεθᾰ́εσσι is thus an artificial form of the kind abounding in
Homer; the difference is that in the language of Homer such singularities were for
the most part triggered by the meter, whereas in Archilochus the factor responsible for the appearance of the irregular form τηλεθᾰ́εσσι was his desire to use a
form that would resonate with the epic tradition36.
built to match the synonymous aor. ῥύην, participle ῥυέντ-, cf. ὕδατος ἀμφιναέντος Emped. 84. 10
DK7(= 88 Wright). 5. γανάεις in Aeschylus (μάκαρας θεοὺς †γανάεντες† Suppl. 1019 West) and Pindar
(γανάεντα χ[Pi. fr. 70d (h). 7) is very unlikely to be an adjective in ‑(ϝ)εις: there is not much to go on
in the Pindaric fragment (where for all we know the word may have meant ‘gleaming’), but in
Aeschylus the intended sense is clearly ‘glorifying the blessed gods’; the form is therefore transitive
(Friis Jonansen/Whittle 1980, 2, 310–11 advocate Sidgwick’s γανόοντες). 6. (‑)φάεσσα (Εὐρυφάεσσα
h. Hom. 31. 2, 4; πασιφάεσσα Arist. Mir. 843b2; πλησιφάεσσα Doroth. ap. Heph. Astr. 3. 16) is
irrelevant, because the -α- not a suffix of a first declension noun, but a part of the root (cf. noun
φάος, aor. φάε).
34 It is not unlikely that the poet wanted to make his audience think of Διὸς Ἀπάτη (see e.g.
van Sickle 1975, 11–12; Slings 1987, 45).
35 See Ruijgh (1980) 422; (1984–85) 92. Ruijgh’s explanation was adopted by Slings (1987)
45.
36 Another example of an artificial nonce-form in Archilochean corpus is the neuter adjective
ὑλέειν ‘wooded’ (scil. ὄρος; Archil. fr. 122. 8–9 W.2), necessitated by the meter (trochaic tetrameter,
‑ειν stands in the princeps). Unfortunately, the form is not completely certain: Stobaeus’ text is
corrupt (4. 46. 10 ἡδὺ ῆν) and P.Oxy. 2313 fr.1 (a) has tantalizing ] ειν.
West prints ὑλέειν, but
̣
thinks that the reading of the papyrus may have been ὑλήειν citable from Choerob. ii. 214. 18
Hilgard (cf. τιμήειν Hdn. ii. 275). The form ὑλέειν / ὑλήειν (instead of expected ὑλέε /ὑλῆεν),
labeled by Risch (1975) 221 n. 6 as an überraschende Dehnung, was generated by a proportional
analogy with other adjectives in ‑ντ‑, e.g. πᾶ-ς : πᾶ-ν = ὑλέ/ήεις : X, X = ὑλέ/ήειν (neuter πᾶν is
itself analogical, cf. πάνυ). ὑλήειν / ὑλέειν would probably still be uncontracted in Archilochus’
time, cf. παρήειρε Archil. 94. 2, τιμῆεν Call. 1. 6, τιμήεσσα Mimn. 5. 5, τιμήεντος 12. 7; but if the
spoken language already had contracted ὑλεῖν, one could think of ὑλέειν as a case of distraction,
again due to an analogy.
Several neuters in -ειν are found in Hellenistic poetry (ὀφρυόειν ‘rich in hills’ Call. fr. 186. 20
Pfeiffer, σκιόειν ‘shaded’ Ap. Rh. 2. 404, δακρυόειν ‘weeping’ 4. 1291, πυρόειν ‘fiery’ Nic. Ther.
748, etc.), but despite Smyth (1894) 277, these forms are not exactly comparable to ὑλή/έειν:
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
19
4. We can now return to the problem of νηφέμεν in the Archilochus’ fragment.
The following hypothesis may be advanced: νηφέμεν is Archilochus’ own coinage
which is best explained as another instance of mock-epic, with a combination of
epic elevated grammar with a low-level vocabulary item being used to produce a
comic effect in the context of an invitation to get drunk on duty. In support of this
theory one might point to other epicisms in the poem, such as θοῆς διὰ σέλματα
νηός in line 6 which may hark back to epic νῆες θοαί (Il. 1. 12+); however, doing so
would amount to begging the question, because νῆες θοαί may well have been
conventional language in the 7th century and the fact that this also was a Homeric
phrase does not need to mean much.
There is a much more significant indication of a real allusion to epic in
our case: it appears that we can identify the specific point of contact with
epic poetry which may have served as the model for the Aeolic form νηφέμεν
in our elegy, namely, the midsummer festival scene in Hesiod (Op. 582–594),
where in line 592 we read αἴθοπα πινέμεν οἶνον “drink some gleaming wine!”37
Ιn view of the general similarity in spirit between the two passages38 as
well as other thematic and stylistic parallels, to be discussed momentarily, it
appears entirely plausible that Archilochus’ νηφέμεν o w e s i t s u n e x p e c t e d
m o r p h o l o g i c a l m a k e - u p p r e ci s e l y t o t h e A e o l i c i n f i n i t i v e πινέμεν
in Hesiod.
5. Despite the fact that the study of parallels between archaic epic and
Archilochus has a very long tradition, the view that Archilochus knew an oral or
written version of Works and Days and actively engaged with this text has
rather, they are modeled on the Homeric use of forms like ὀμφαλόεν before tritotrochaic caesura,
where lengthening is not uncommon (Il. 24. 269 ὀμφαλόεν εὖ; see Marxer 1935, 29 and a somewhat
garbled summary of her views in Livrea 1973, 364). Some Homeric mss. that Apollonius had access
to may have spelled such forms with ‑όειν: the notation of metrically lengthened -εν as -ειν would
in any event follow the model of ἐν(-) ~ εἰν(-) ‘in’.
37 Note that both Hesiodic αἴθοπα οἶνον and οἶνον ἐρυθρόν in Archilochus’ text are wellestablished epic formulae: αἴθοπα οἶνον (12x Il., 12x Od., 2x Hes. Op.), οἶνον ἐρυθρόν (5x Od.,
H. Cer. 208). The ratio existendi of πινέμεν in the fifth foot of hexameter is Meister’s bridge, see
above, n. 7.
38 I am not certain why Burnett (1983) 39 interprets the Archilochean elegy as occasioned by a
storm at sea: if she were right and the point of the fragment was the drunken defiance of both
danger and order, the suggested comparison with the relaxed scene in Hesiod would be seriously
undermined, but as far as I can see, there is nothing in the text to support her reading. The ship
here is quite possibly a metaphor: for this nautical image in early Greek poetry see Nünlist (1998)
317–325.
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
20
Alexander Nikolaev
certainly not become orthodox39. Since our hypothesis implies precisely that, it
behooves us to offer a few remarks on this topic.40
Indeed, many of the parallels assembled by Renner 1871 and Steffen 1952–
5341 may just as well be viewed as elements of conventional language and therefore have little bearing on the question of purported literary relationship between
Hesiod and Archilochus. It seems, however, that we are in a somewhat better
situation with the picnic scene from Hesiod. This passage, combining an invitation to drink with the theme of sexual desire, has impressed at least one other
poet of comparable temperament, namely Alcaeus (fr. 347 Voigt)42, and perhaps
even two (Sappho fr. 101A Voigt43); more importantly, the passage has probably
left traces elsewhere in Archilochus’ oeuvre. In order to better appreciate these, it
will be convenient to quote the Hesiodic text here in full:
Ἦμος δὲ σκόλυμός τ’ ἀνθεῖ καὶ ἠχέτα τέττιξ
δενδρέῳ ἐφεζόμενος λιγυρὴν καταχεύετ’ ἀοιδήν
πυκνὸν ὑπὸ πτερύγων θέρεος καματώδεος ὥρῃ,
τῆμος πιόταταί τ’ αἶγες, καὶ οἶνος ἄριστος,
μαχλόταται δὲ γυναῖκες, ἀφαυρότατοι δέ τοι ἄνδρες
εἰσίν, ἐπεὶ κεφαλὴν καὶ γούνατα Σείριος ἄζει,
αὐαλέος δέ τε χρὼς ὑπὸ καύματος· ἀλλὰ τότ’ ἤδη
εἴη πετραίη τε σκιὴ καὶ βίβλινος οἶνος
μάζα τ’ ἀμολγαίη γάλα τ’ αἰγῶν σβεννυμενάων
καὶ βοὸς ὑλοφάγοιο κρέας μή πω τετοκυίης
πρωτογόνων τ’ ἐρίφων· ἐπὶ δ’ αἴθοπα πινέμεν οἶνον,
590
39 The most recent study of the subject by Breitenstein (1971) has received several harsh reviews,
all of which agree in that despite the amount of documentation assembled by the author the real
proof is still lacking.
40 For the resonances of Works and Days in other early Greek poetry see West (1978) 61 (e.g.
Mimn. fr. 6 W. ~ Op. 91–92; Tyrt. fr. 10. 3–6 ~ Op. 399–400; on Sem. fr. 6 W. ~ Op. 702–703 see also
Janko 1982, 97–98).
41 E. g. ἀνηκέστοισι κακοῖσιν (Archil. 13. 5) vs. ἀνήκεστον κακόν (Hes. Th. 612) or ἀλλά μ’ ὁ
λυσιμελὴς ὦταῖρε δάμναται πόθος (Archil. 196) vs. ἠδ’ Ἔρος, ὃς κάλλιστος ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι /
λυσιμελής, πάντων τε θεῶν πάντων τ’ ἀνθρώπων / δάμναται ἐν στήθεσσι νόον καὶ ἐπίφρονα
βουλήν (Hes. Th. 120–122).
42 See the excellent monographic treatment by Petropoulos (1994). For our purposes the similarity between lines 4–5 νῦν δὲ γύναικες μιαρώταται | λέπτοι δ’ ἄνδρες “now are women most
pestilential, but men are feeble” and Op. 586 μαχλόταται δὲ γυναῖκες, ἀφαυρότατοι δέ τοι ἄνδρες
is most important. It has been debated whether Hesiod’s and Alcaeus’ passages derive from the
same stock of thematic material (so Hooker 1977, 81–2 and, with a different approach, Nagy 1990,
462) or Alcaeus imitates Hesiod (e.g. Page 1955, 303–306; Kassel 1981, 11–18; Burnett, 1983, 133).
E. Bowie recently suggested that the poem was composed for a performance in a Boeotian
symposium (2009, 119), which would explain the reason for imitation.
43 See Liberman (1992).
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
21
ἐν σκιῇ ἑζόμενον, κεκορημένον ἦτορ ἐδωδῆς,
ἀντίον ἀκραέος Ζεφύρου τρέψαντα πρόσωπα·
When the golden thistle blooms and the chirping cicada,
sitting in a tree, incessantly pours out its clearsounding song
from under its wings in the season of toilsome summer,
at that time goats are fattest and wine is best,
and women are most lascivious, and men are weakest,
for Sirius parches their head and knees,
and their skin is dry from the heat.
At that time let there be a rock’s shadow and Bibline wine,
bread made with milk, cheese from goats that are just drying up,
and the meat of a forest-grazing cow that has not yet calved
and of newly born kids. Drink some gleaming wine, too,
sitting in the shade, when you have eaten to your heart’s content,
with your face turned towards fresh-blowing Zephyrus.
While one may be skeptical towards drawing a parallel between τέττιξ in l. 582
and the cicada in Archil. fr. 223 W.2 (where the poet associates himself with the
shrilling insect), there are other, more plausible cases of parallelism between this
passage and Archilochus’ poems44. One of them in my opinion is fr. 107 W.2:
ἔλπομαι, πολλοὺς μὲν αὐτῶν Σείριος καθαυανεῖ
ὀξὺς ἐλλάμπων·
Many of them, I expect, will be dried up
by the Dog Star’s fierce rays
We do not have a clear context for the fragment45, but the mention of the Sirius is
a promising lead. The parching effect of the Dog Star is frequently mentioned in
44 An allusion to the summer picnic scene in the Works and Days with its erotic subtext has been
found in Archil. fr. spur. 331, for which “more than one indecent interpretation is possible” (Dover
1964, 185 n. 1): συκῆ πετραίη πολλὰς βόσκουσα κορώνας, / εὐήθης ξείνων δέκτρια Πασιφίλη Like
a fig-tree on rocky ground that feeds many crows, good-natured Pasiphile takes on strangers. The
similarity between συκῆ πετραίη and πετραίη σκιή (Op. 581) has been duly noted (see e.g.
Breitenstein 1971, 54 n. 135) and this comparison may be valid (on the obscene fig-symbolism see
Buchheit 1960), but it appears fairly certain that the ascription of Pasiphile epigram to Archilochus is erroneous: see West (1974) 139–140 and Silk (1985) for an additional linguistic argument.
45 The fragment is quoted by Plu. Quest. Conv. 3. 10. 2 (= Mor. 658b) in the context of a discussion
of desiccation of bodies (τὸν δ’ ἥλιον ἀναρπάζειν μᾶλλον ἐκ τῶν σωμάτων τὸ νοτερὸν διὰ τὴν
πύρωσιν but the sun by its burning heat draws rather all moisture from the bodies). According to
Hawkins (2009) 8, σώματα in this passage are corpses, but it is hardly possible to exclude the
meaning ‘bodies of living people’ (on the use of σῶμα see Renehan 1979).
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
22
Alexander Nikolaev
Greek literature: it is mostly said to threaten crops and livestock46, but it is only in
Hesiod and Alceus (fr. 347 Voigt) that its destructive heat is said to affect humans.
The disastrous effect is rather specific: as has been noticed, κεφαλὴν καὶ γούνατα
(Σείριος ἄζει) in Hesiod (Op. 587) refers to procreation and semen47. The similarity
between the passages in Archilochus and Hesiod in respect to Sirius has, too, long
been noticed48, but has not, to my knowledge, been explained. In my opinion it
would not be unreasonable to speculate that πολλούς αὐτῶν in Archilochus is
unlikely to refer to crops and the poet rather uses καθαυανεῖ in the same sense as
Hesiod’s ἄζει, having the passage from the Works and Days in mind: he hopes
(ἔλπομαι) that his enemies become driest of semen (Hesiod’s ἀφαυρότατοι49), the
inability to perform sexually being a fitting topic for an iambic invective50.
Another echo of the Hesiodic picnic scene may be found in the muchdiscussed Archilochus’ fragment 2 (ἐν δορὶ μέν μοι μᾶζα μεμαγμένη…): D. Arnould
and F. Bossi have independently pointed out a number of parallels between this
fragment and Op. 589–593, such as Βίβλινος οἶνος ~ οἶνος Ἰσμαρικός, μᾶζα
ἀμολγαίη ~ μᾶζα μεμαγμένη, ἐν σκιῇ ἑζόμενον ~ ἐν δορὶ κεκλιμένος51. These
similarities become particularly significant in view of the closeness between
Archil. fr. 2 and our fragment 4: as is well known, the idea of joining these two
Archilochean fragments has been on the market for a while52.
6. We can thus conclude that the form νηφέμεν in Archil. fr. 4.9 is not an
epicism, but rather the poet’s own coinage, modeled on the epic-Aeolic infinitive
πινέμεν in Hesiod (Op. 592). This artificial form had a two fold effect: a lowly root
adorned with a high-flown epic ending added a comic dimension to the poem and
46 Aesch. Ag. 967; Eur. Hec. 1102–3; Α. R. 2. 516–17; 3.957–9; Aratus, Phaen. 332–5.
47 See Onians (1954) 108–116; 175–186 and cf. Plin. Nat. 22. 86 (Hesiodo et Alcaeo testibus …
virosque in coitum pigerrimos scripsere).
48 See West (1978) 305.
49 On ἀφαυρότατος see Renehan (1980) 356.
50 One is reminded of the narrative in Mnesiepes’ inscription (SEG XV 517, col. iii, 41–46)
according to which the men of the Paros who put Archilochus on trial for his too iambic poem
(fr. 251 W2) were punished with impotence (in addition to Nagy 1979, 297–308 see the recent
discussion by Clay 2004, 10–26).
51 Arnould (1980) 293; Bossi (1980) 26–27; Bossi (1990) 75–76.
52 Mentioned by Diehl as a possibility and later independently argued by Bowra (1954) 43
(= 1970, 71) and Gentili (1965) 132–134 (and in several subsequent publications); accepted by
Aloni (1981) 49; 57; Bossi (1990) 70–71 and, in a more reserved way, Russo (1973–1974) 714.
Skeptical or uncertain are van Groningen (1930) 77 n. 2; Davison 1960; Giannini (1988) 43–44;
Lasserle 1979; Lennartz (2010) 457 n. 1642. In view of the paragraphos and coronis that stand in
the papyrus, fr. 4 was considered a separate poem in the Alexandrian edition of Archilochus (by
Aristophanes of Byzantium or Aristarchus).
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
23
served as a specific allusion to the midsummer picnic scene in Hesiod, a passage
for which Archilochus had a special interest.
Acknowledgement: It is my pleasure to thank Michael Haslam, Jay Jasanoff,
Gregory Nagy, Martin Peters, Jeremy Rau, and Martin West for helpful comments;
needless to say, I am alone responsible for all conclusions reached here.
Bibliography
A. W. H. Adkins, Poetic Craft in the Early Greek Elegists, Chicago 1985.
A. Aloni, Le muse di Archiloco: Ricerche sullo stile archilocheo, Copenhagen 1981.
C. A. Anderson, Archilochus, his Lost Shield, and the Heroic Ideal, Phoenix 62, 2008, 255–260.
D. Arnould, Archiloque et le vin d’Ismaros (Fr. 2 Diehl = 2 West = 7 Lasserre-Bonnard), RPh ser. 3
54, 1980, 284–294.
E. Barker/J. Christensen, Flight club: the New Archilochus and its Resonance with Homeric epic,
MD 57, 2006, 9–41.
T. Bergk, Poetae lyrici graeci III: Poetae melici, Leipzig 41882.
A. Blanc, L’accablement et la stupéfaction: κατηφής et τέθηπα, in: ‘ΗΔΙΣΤΟΝ ΛΟΓΟΔΕΙΠΝΟΝ.
Logopédies: mélanges de philologie et de linguistique grecques offerts à Jean Taillardat,
Paris 1988, 33–48.
W. Blümel, Die aiolischen Dialekte: Phonologie und Morphologie der inschriftlichen Texte aus
generativer Sicht, Göttingen 1982.
F. Bossi, Archil. fr. 2 (e 4) W., QUCC 5, 1980, 23–27.
–, Studi su Archiloco, Bari 21990.
–, Archilochea, in: E. Degani et al. (eds.), ΜΟΥΣΑ: Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Morelli, Bologna
1997, 37–41.
E. Bowie, Wandering Poets, Archaic Style, in: R. L. Hunter/ I. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering
Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality, and Pan-hellenism, Cambridge/UK 2009,
105–136.
C. M. Bowra, A Couplet of Archilochus, Añales de Filología Clásica 6, 1954, 37–43 (reprinted in:
On Greek Margins, Oxford 1970).
T. Breitenstein, Hésiode et Archiloque, Odense 1971.
V. Buchheit, Feigensymbolik im antiken Epigram, RhM 103, 1960, 200–229.
A. P. Burnett, Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, Cambridge/Mass. 1983.
I. Cazzaniga, Nicandro, Theriaca v. 60, RIFC 91, 1963, 461–469.
D. Clay, Archilochos Heros: The Cult of the Poets in the Greek Polis, Washington/D. C. 2004.
S. Colvin, A Historical Greek Reader: Mycenaean to the Koiné, Oxford 2007.
P. da Cunha Corrêa, Armas e varões: a guerra na lírica de Arquíloco, São Paulo 22009.
J. A. Davison, Archilochus fr. 2 Diehl, CR 10, 1960, 1–4 (reprinted in: From Archilochus to Pindar.
Papers on Greek Literature of the Archaic Period, London 1968).
E. Degani, Il nuovo Archiloco, A&R 19, 1974, 113–128.
K. J. Dover, The Poetry of Archilochos, in: Archiloque (= Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 10),
Vandœvres-Genève 1964, 183–212.
R. Ellis, Notes on Longinus περὶ ὕψους, Hermathena 9, 1894–1896, 385–388.
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
24
Alexander Nikolaev
B. Forssman, Schichten in der homerischen Sprache, in: J. Latacz (ed.), Zweihundert Jahre
Homer-Forschung, Stuttgart 1991, 259–88.
R. L. Fowler, The Nature of Early Greek Lyric: Three Preliminary Studies, Toronto 1987.
H. Friis Jonansen/E. W. Whittle, Aeschylus: The Suppliants, Copenhagen 1980.
C. Gallavotti, Pindaro hyporch. fr. 107ab, RFIC 40, 1962, 38–42.
–, Note al nuovo Archiloco, MC 8–9, 1973–1974, 22–31.
Th. Gärtner, Kritische Überlegungen zu den Fragmenten des Archilochos, Hermes 136, 2008, 1–14.
B. Gentili, Interpretazione di Archiloco fr. 2D = 7 L.-B., RFIC 93, 1965, 129–134.
D. E. Gerber, Archilochus, Fr. 4 West: A Commentary, ICS 6/1 (= Festschrift Alexander Turyn),
1981, 1–11.
P. Giannini, Il ‘convito’ di Archiloco, Rudiae 1, 1988, 33–44.
M. Gigante, Orazio tra Simonide e Posidippo, in: Atti dell’ Accademia delle Scienze di Torino:
Supplemento al Vol. 128, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, 1994, 55–71.
B. P. Grenfell/A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri VI, London 1908.
B. A. van Groningen, De Archilochi fragmento secundo, Mnemosyne 58, 1930, 74–78.
A. E. Harvey, Homeric Epithets in Greek Lyric Poetry, CQ 7, 1957, 206–223.
T. Hawkins, This is the Death of the Earth: Crisis Narratives in Archilochus and Mnesiepes,
TAPhA 139, 2009, 1–20.
W. B. Henry, An Archilochus Papyrus?, ZPE 121, 1998, 94.
A. S. Hollis, Callimachus, Aetia Fr. 1. 9–12, CQ 28, 1978, 402–406.
J. T. Hooker, The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets, Innsbruck 1977.
W. W. Jaeger, Paideia: die Formung des griechischen Menschen, vol. 1, Berlin 1934.
R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns, Cambridge 1982.
J. C. Kamerbeek, Remarques sur le nouvel Archiloque (P. Colon. inv. 7511), Mnemosyne 29, 1976,
113–128.
R. Kassel, Dichterspiele, ZPE 42, 1981, 11–20.
F. Lasserre, Archiloque Frg. 2 West, GB 8, 1979, 49–56.
K. Lennartz, Iambos: philologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Gattung in der Antike,
Wiesbaden 2010.
F. Letoublon, Archiloque et l’encyclopédie homérique, Pallas 77, 2008, 51–62.
G. Liberman, Lire Sappho dans Démétrios, Sur le style, QUCC n. s. 40, 1992, 45–48.
E. Livrea, Argonauticon liber quartus. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento,
Florence 1973.
–, Simonides, fr. 22 West2 = 9 Gentili-Prato2, ZPE 158, 2006, 13–14.
G. Marxer, Die Sprache des Apollonius Rhodius in ihren Beziehungen zu Homer, Dissertation
Zürich 1935.
A. Meineke, Quaestionum scenicarum specimen tertium, Berlin 1830.
K. Meister, Die homerische Kunstsprache, Leipzig 1921.
J. H. Molyneux, Simonides. A Historical Study, Wauconda/Il. 1992.
G. Monaco, Nota Archilochea, A&R 5, 1960, 19–22.
G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans, Baltimore 1979.
–, Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past, Baltimore 1990.
R. Nünlist, Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung, Stuttgart 1998.
D. Page, Archilochus and the Oral Tradition, in: Archiloque (= Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique
10), Vandœvres/Genève 1964, 117–179.
J. C. B. Petropoulos, Heat and Lust: Hesiod’s Midsummer Festival Scene Revisited, Lanham 1994.
O. Poltera, Simonidea, SIFC ser. 4, vol. 1, 2003, 207–214.
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM
An Epic Party?
25
–, Simonides lyricus, Testimonia und Fragmente: Einleitung, kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung
und Kommentar, Basel 2008.
Th. Reinach, Deux fragments d’hyporchèmes anonymes, in: Mélanges H. Weil, Paris 1898,
413–422.
R. Renehan, The Meaning of ΣΩΜΑ in Homer: A Study in Methodology, California Studies in
Classical Antiquity 12, 1979, 269–282.
–, Progress in Hesiod, CP 75, 1980, 339–358.
A. Rengakos, Homerische Wörter bei Kallimachos, ZPE 94, 1992, 21–47.
J. G. Renner, Ueber das Formelwesen im griechischen Epos und epische Reminiscenzen in der
älteren griechischen Elegie, Bd. 1, Freiberg 1871.
E. Risch, Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache, Berlin/New York 21974.
–, Sprachliche Betrachtungen zum neuen Archilochos-Fragment, GB 4, 1975, 219–229.
J. V. Romano, The Literary Art of Archilochos: The Elegiac Poems, Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Michigan 1974.
C. J. Ruijgh, De ontwikkeling van de lyrische kunsttaal, met name van het litteraire dialect van de
koorlyriek, Lampas 13, 1980, 416–435.
–, Review of E. Risch, Kleine Schriften, Berlin/New York 1981, Kratylos 29, 1984–1985, 86–92.
J. Russo, Reading the Greek Lyric Poets (Monodists), Arion n. s. 1, 1973–1974, 707–730.
V. Schmidt, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas, Berlin 1968.
E. Schwyzer, Griechische Nominalbildungen, ZVS 63, 1936, 52–67.
J. van Sickle, The New Erotic Fragment of Archilochus, QUCC 20, 1975, 123–156.
D. Sider, As is the Generation of Leaves: Homer, Simonides, Horace, and Stobaeus, in: D. Boedeker/D. Sider (eds.), The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire, Oxford 2001,
272–288.
M. S. Silk, Greek -τρια and the Inauthenticity of Archilochus 331, Eos 73, 1985, 239–246.
S. Slings, First Cologne Epode, in: J. M. Bremer et al. (eds.), Some Recently Found Greek Poems:
Text and Commentary, Leiden 1987, 24–61.
V. Steffen, De Archiloco quasi naturali Hesiodi aemulatore, Eos 46, 1952–1953, 33–48 (reprinted
in: Scripta minora selecta, Wrocław 1973, 22–36).
A. Thumb/A. Scherer, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, Bd. 2, Heidelberg 21959.
M. Treu, Archilochos, München 21979.
B. Vine, Autour du sud-picénien qolofitúr. Étymolodie et poétique, in: G.-J. Pinault/D. Petit (eds.),
La langue poétique indo-européenne: actes du colloque de travail de la Société des études
indo-européennes, Paris, 22–24 octobre 2003, Leuven 2006, 499–516.
A. Vogliano, Commentario ad Antimaco di Colofone, in: A. Vogliano (ed.), Papiri della Università
degli Studi di Milano, Milan 1937, 41–65.
M. Weiss, On the Non-verbal Origin of the Greek Verb νήφειν ‘to be sober’, HS 107, 1994, 91–98.
M. L. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin/New York 1974.
–, Hesiod: Works and Days, Oxford 1978.
–, Greek Metre, Oxford 1982.
–, Simonides Redivivus, ZPE 98, 1993, 1–14.
D. Young, Review of M. L. West (ed.), Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, vol. 1,
Oxford 1971, JHS 93, 1973, 221–223.
Brought to you by | Harvard University
Authenticated | 140.247.19.70
Download Date | 7/24/14 10:22 PM