THE IDEA OF IAMBOS
This page intentionally left blank
The Idea of Iambos ANDREA ROTSTEIN
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # Andrea Rotstein 2010 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire ISBN 978–0–19–928627–0 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
In memory of Eugenia PanasoV de Taich (Ukraine, 28 March 1910–Argentina, 14 July 2003)
Preface Greek iambic poetry Xourished within the predominantly oral culture of Ionia in the seventh and sixth centuries bce, and to some extent continued to be composed and performed in the following centuries. In this poetic tradition we have a group of mostly fragmentary poems which we cannot ascribe either to the genre of epic poetry or to that of elegy. The group includes poems in stichic iambic trimeters, stichic trochaic tetrameters, and stanzas called epodes, which usually combine a hexameter or an iambic trimeter with shorter dactylic or iambic verses1 (for the sake of convenience I shall refer to this group of metres as ‘iambic metres’). As a rule, editions add to these poems stichic hexameters used for parodic purposes (such as Hipponax 128W), although this may be done for pragmatic reasons. It is customary to refer to this group of compositions as iambic poetry, iambus in Latin or, as I will in this work, by using a transliteration of the Greek term, iambos. However, the exact range of poems covered by the term iambos is not clear, for we have no explicit contemporary evidence to say how the genre was conceptualized in the seventh and sixth centuries. When we come to establish a corpus of iambic poetry we depend on much later evidence. Hence, the extension of the corpus is as much a puzzle as the concept of the genre itself. Post-classical evidence helps deWne a corpus of fragmentary poems in which we Wnd a variety of topics and literary devices, such as dramatic impersonation and dialogue along with narrative elements, parody, fables, paraenesis or moral exhortation, military, political, and scoptic content and abuse of named individuals.
1 Archilochus combines hexameter with hemiepes, hexameter with iambic dimeter, hexameter with iambic dimeter and hemiepes, hexameter with tetrameter dactylic catalectic. Archilochus, Hipponax, and Ananius combine iambic trimeter with hemiepes; Archilochus and Hipponax combine iambic trimeter with iambic dimeter. In addition Archilochus combines iambic trimeter with hemiepes and iambic dimeter, iambic trimeter with ithyphallic, dactylic tetrameter with ithyphallic, penthemimer and ithyphallic. (Cf. West (1982), 43.)
Preface
vii
Notwithstanding this variety, from the Hellenistic period onwards iambos came to be identiWed almost exclusively with poetic invective written in iambic metres (iambic trimeters, trochaic tetrameters, and epodic stanzas). How can we account for this mismatch between narrow ancient deWnitions of iamboi and the traditional corpus of iambic poetry? Was archaic iambos a more restricted corpus of poems to which other non-iambic poems were added, perhaps due to editorial constraints? Or did archaic audiences term a wider range of poems iamboi, and ancient deWnitions only reXect later scholarly classiWcations? Since these questions are about a concept, that of iambos, and the historical process in which it developed, the poems per se cannot give an answer. I shall therefore avail myself of ancient testimonies, acknowledging that what we have is evidence on the reception of the genre and how it was perceived at stages quite removed from composition. My approach is historiographical rather than historical: I propose to unfold the process of conceptualization of iambos as a genre rather than the development of the genre itself.2 Questions such as ‘how is iambos deWned’ or ‘what are the exact boundaries of the genre’ may not Wnd an answer in this book, or at least not a simple one. Instead, I will oVer the history of iambos as a generic concept. The main hypothesis of my book is that there was a shift from a concept of a class that depends primarily on rhythm and on its archetypical representative, Archilochus, towards iambos as a genre deWned mainly by invective as a dominant feature. In Part One I approach issues of genre and corpus. Since much scholarly dissent regarding archaic iambos is due to a basic disagreement on what literary genres are, I spell out in Chapter 1 my own understanding of genres, much inXuenced by principles deriving 2 My approach was deeply inXuenced by a methodological statement of David Asheri (now available in Murray (2007), xii–xiii): ‘Thanks to Momigliano . . . I became interested in historiography, and understood that we are only very seldom able to know exactly what happened in history, the sources being as they are. But the image, how people saw and understood what happened, people who came later and wrote about it, this is something that can be known and can be based on sources. ( . . . ) and we can follow the image generation after generation through the historiography. ( . . . ) In a sense this is the histoire des mentalite´s: it is more important to understand the mentality of human beings, how they see things, than to know how things really happened.’
viii
Preface
from cognitive sciences. In Chapter 2 I survey the poets that may be included in a corpus of iambic poetry, and propose to view both canon and corpus as a gradient structured by core and periphery, which I denominate the ‘received iambos’. Part Two deals with the Wlter that conditions contemporary understandings of the nature of iambos. Indeed, ancient scholarship by and large inherited the identiWcation of invective as a deWning feature of the genre from Aristotle’s Poetics. I therefore devote Chapter 3 to an examination of Aristotle’s conceptualization of iambos. In Chapter 4 I trace the theories of iambos that can be found in ancient scholarship, and show how Hellenistic scholarship faced the same problem that we face today, namely, the lack of consistency between the traditional deWnition of iambos and the traditional corpus that circulated under this name. Part Three oVers a study of iambos and its cognates Iambe and iambeion in the archaic and classical period. My interpretation of Archil. 215W (Chapter 5) and of the Iambe scene in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Chapter 6) suggests that in the archaic period the genre was associated with occasions of ritualized commensality and conviviality and with the general function of entertainment. In Chapter 7 I discern an early use of iambos for a rhythm (kl),3 a nomos or musical pattern, a type of poem and a literary genre for public performance. The lack of speciWcity of performance context and function apparent in the archaic testimonies suggests that some other feature must have been at work in the ancients’ categorization, which I propose might have been rhythm. Part Four deals with the performance of iambos. I examine the possibility of musical performance in Chapter 8, and in Chapter 9 the various occasions of public performance, particularly at musical contests and rhapsodic recitals. The fact that manner and occasion for the presentation of iamboi were by no means univocal explains why aspects of performance did not function in the ancient categorization of the genre. Part Five focuses on the crystallization of iambos as poetic invective emerging in Plato and Aristotle. I propose that the perception of invective
3 Unlike metrical theory, for which the unit was the metron, in musical theory iambos as a ratio (2:1) is a unit of rhythm, which covers the iambic foot, the trochaic foot, and the sequence of three short syllables (see Ch. 7, sect. 1).
Preface
ix
poetry through Archilochus as a prototype (Chapter 10) preceded the perception of iambos primarily through the dominant feature of invective (Chapter 11). Thus notions associated with invective appear at a late stage in the process of conceptualization of iambos as a literary genre.
Acknowledgements The Idea of ‘Iambos’ began life as a doctoral dissertation written for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem mostly while I was at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in 2000–2. Before that, it was a set of questions deriving from an MA thesis on Archilochus’ Poetics supervised by Amiel Vardi, and before that, a seminar on Greek Archaic Poetry taught by Ra‘anana Meridor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Yet before all that, it was a thirst for life and scholarship that took me from Bahı´a Blanca (Argentina) to Jerusalem in 1994, from Jerusalem to Oxford in 2000, and back to Jerusalem in 2003 and Wnally to Tel Aviv in 2005. This book reXects, I hope, my own development and my personal way of responding to the friends and scholars, the writings and ideas met during this journey. Although The Idea of ‘Iambos’ began as a doctoral dissertation, only Chapters 5 to 11 derive from it, in a substantially revised and rewritten form, whereas the Wrst four chapters are a result of postdoctoral research. I would like to thank the institutions that made my work possible. First of all, I extend my gratitude to the Department of Classics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for ensuring grants and work opportunities that supported me during my graduate studies. I am grateful to the Yad Hanadiv (Rothschild) Foundation for funding my graduate studies as a visiting student in Oxford (2000–1). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and AVI Fellowships made possible a second year of graduate work in Oxford, for which I am truly grateful. I thank the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust (2003) and the Yad Hanadiv (Rothschild) Foundation (2004–6) for supporting my postdoctoral research. During my graduate years in Oxford I found in Corpus Christi College a warm academic home. As a postdoctoral scholar I was an academic visitor at the University of Leipzig Department of Classics, Stanford University Department of Classics, and at the American School of Athens. I would like to thank all my hosts for providing such wonderfully stimulating environments to grow and develop as a scholar.
Acknowledgements
xi
Certain debts of gratitude do not allow for understatement. As a graduate student I had the best possible supervisors: Ewen Bowie and Amiel Vardi. Amiel relentlessly taught me the art of writing and arguing in English, promoting the development of my own arguments and ideas. From the very beginning of my work on Greek Iambic Poetry Ewen gave me meticulous feedback and held most stimulating discussions with me. I owe both Ewen and Amiel more than I could possibly tell. I thank them both; they are inspiring models of dedication to students and to classical scholarship. My gratitude goes to scholars who helped in most diverse ways. Ra‘anana Meridor initiated me in the complex pleasures of Greek lyric poetry. Joseph Geiger encouraged me at the beginning of my research on iambos. David Fishelov helped me reWne my reXection on genre theory. Margalit Finkelberg has provided most helpful advice and criticism through the writing of my Ph.D. thesis as well as of the present book. Hannah Cotton has been for many years a source of support and encouragement. Her passion and commitment are contagious; I have learned a great deal from her. Finally, in her unique way, and particularly at diYcult times, Dwora Gilula was at my side. I am deeply indebted to many scholars and friends who read early versions of my work, discussed it with me, or sent me their own, often unpublished writings. I would like to thank especially Kristina Bartol, Federico Condello, Paula Correˆa, Cristina Esposto, Deborah Gera, Mark GriYth, Stephen Halliwell, Tom Hawkins, Silvie Honigman, Don Lavigne, Liana Lomiento, Richard Martin, Penelope Murray, Jaume Po`rtulas, Xavier Riu, Hannah Rosen, Ralph Rosen, Wolfgang Ro¨sler, Kurt Sier, Michael Winterbottom, and Neta Zagagi. I am particularly grateful to Martin West, one of the examiners of my Ph.D. dissertation, who made a great number of valuable suggestions to improve my thesis. I would like to thank the two anonymous readers of Oxford University Press for their helpful criticism, and my editors at the press, for careful preparation of the typescript for publication. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Mira Raich, my English editor, and to Uri Segal and Barak Blum, whose assistance I truly appreciate. In my last year as a graduate student I suVered one of the most terrifying nightmares a classicist can undergo: I could not read. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Jacob Pe’er and his
xii
Acknowledgements
team at the Department of Ophthalmology of the Hadassah University Hospital (Ein Karem, Jerusalem) for restoring much more than my sight through thoughtful and eYcient treatment. Most especially I would like to thank the friends who gave me constant support in that time of crisis, particularly Christy Avraam, Elena Canetti, Sylvie Honigman, Wytze Keulen, Priscilla Lange, Jorgelina Marino (with Claudio and Pampita), Kara Massie, Tamar Neuhaus Selch, Diego Olstein, Markus Schrenk, Dorthe Seifert, and Levana Tzfania. Above all, I would like to thank my partner, Tamar, for her support and patience during the years in which this book came into being. By a truly mysterious equation, through the gift of Tamar’s love scholarship makes much more sense. As many women of her generation, my grandmother, Eugenia PanasoV de Taich, would have wanted to go to university. Instead, she became a wife, and raised children and grandchildren. Over the years her eyes always looked at me with love and pride. I dedicate this book to her dear memory.
Contents Abbreviations
xvi
PA RT O N E. G R E E K I A M BO S (7 T H – 4 T H C E N T. B C E ) : GENRE AND CORPUS 1. Approaching Genre 1. A cognitive view of archaic poetic genres 2. Approaches to the genre and corpus of iambos 2. The Corpus of Iambic Poets 1. Canon vs. Corpus 2. The ‘received iambos’ i. The ‘received iambos’: three explanations
3 3 16 25 27 34 52
PA RT TWO. WAYS OF SEEING 3. Iambos in Aristotle’s Works 1. Aristotle’s use of terms 2. Aristotle’s scholarship on iambos 3. The Poetics on genres 4. Aristotle on the history of poetry (Poetics 4) i. Theoretical or Deductive approach ii. Empirical or Inductive approach iii. Iambos in Aristotle’s history of poetry 5. Psogoi and iamboi 6. The Margites and iamboi i. Iambeion kaleitai nun ii. Back to the Margites 7. The iambike idea 8. Aristotle’s conceptualization of iambos
61 61 67 69 74 80 83 86 88 98 100 102 104 108
xiv
Contents
4. Ancient Theories of Iambos 1. Ancient scholarship on iambos 2. Etymologies of iambos 3. Diomedes 4. Proclus (ap. Phot. Chrest. 319b) 5. Iambos in Hellenistic genre theories 6. Ancient theories of iambos: three paradigms
112 113 116 125 130 136 143
PART T HR EE. IAMBOS AND IA MBE I ON : A ST U DY OF TERMS IN CONTEXT 5. Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W) 6. Iambe and Iambos 1. Iambe in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter 2. Aischrologia 3. Iambe in later literary sources 4. Iambe and Baubo 5. Iambe and iambos 7. Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period 1. Iambos as a rhythmical term 2. Iambos as a generic term i. Herodotus (1.12) ii. Aristophanes and the Wrst quotation of an iambos (Ra. 661) iii. Iamboi among literary genres in Plato 3. Iambeion 4. Aristoxenus of Selinus and the hypothesis of a Dorian iambos 5. A history of terms
151 167 167 171 173 176 180 183 183 188 188 201 206 210 213 221
PART F O UR . THE P ERFORMANCE OF IAMBOS 8. Musical Performance of Iamboi 1. Archilochus as a musical innovator 2. Iambis, pariambis, and iambyke 3. Plato’s Laws 935e: were iamboi sung? 4. Iambos and the Pythian Nomos 5. The occasional singing of iamboi
229 230 234 240 248 251
Contents 9. Public Performance of Iamboi 1. Archilochus in mousikoi agones (Heraclit. 42 DK) 2. Iamboi in mousikoi agones (Pl. Lg. 935e) 3. Watching iamboi in theatres (Arist. Pol. 1336b) 4. Rhapsodic performances of iamboi (Ath. 620c) 5. Iambistai as performers of iamboi (Ath. 181c) 6. Iambos as performance
xv 253 256 259 261 263 266 276
PA RT FI VE. PERCEP TIONS OF IAMBOS 10. Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective Poetry 1. Pindar’s Archilochus: praise and blame 2. Archilochus on the Athenian stage 3. The Parian heroization of Archilochus 4. The golden Gorgias and the new Archilochus 5. Critias’ invective against Archilochus 6. Archilochus as representative of invective 11. Invective as the Dominant Feature of Iambos 1. Iambos and the ridicule of citizens (Pl. Lg. 935e) 2. Iambos and obscenity (Arist. Pol. 1336b) 3. ‘That sorcerer fed on iambos’ (Dem. Cor. 139.7) 4. Parapsogos and iambos (Pl. Phdr. 267a) 5. The emergence of invective Final Remarks
281 284 289 293 298 300 317 319 320 325 328 333 341 347
Bibliography Index Locorum General Index
353 381 384
Abbreviations ALG
Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ed. E. Diehl, Leipzig, 19523
CEG
Carmina Epigraphica Graeca: saeculorum VIII–V a. Chr. n., ed. P. A. Hansen, Berlin, New York, 1983
CGF
Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1.1, ed. G. Kaibel in Poetarum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 6.1, Berlin, 1899
CGFPR
Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta, ed. C. Austin, Berlin, 1973
DK
Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels and W. Kranz, 3 vols., Berlin, 19547
DNP
Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopa¨die der Antike, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider, Stuttgart, 1996–2002
DTC2
Pickard-Cambridge, A., Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy, Oxford, 19622
FGrH
Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby, 3 vols., Berlin and Leiden, 1923–58
IEG2
Iambi et Elegi Graeci, ed. M. L. West, 2 vols., Oxford, vol. I: 19892, vol. II: 19922
IG
Inscriptiones Graecae, 12 vols., Berlin, 1873–
Kock
Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, ed. T. Kock, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1880–8
Ku¨hner–Gerth
Ku¨hner, R., Blass, F., and Gerth, B., Ausfu¨hrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols., Hanover and Leipzig, 1890–19043
LIMC
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae L. Kahil, 8 vols., Munich, 1981–97
LSJ
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S. (19409), A Greek– English Lexicon, Oxford (with a revised supplement, 1996 ¼ LSJ Suppl.)
Nauck
Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. A. Nauck, Leipzig, 18561, 18892 The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 19963
OCD3
Classicae,
ed.
Abbreviations
xvii
PCG
Poetae Comici Graeci, ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin, Berlin, 1983– (also referred to as Austin)
PLF
Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, ed. E. Lobel and D. Page, Oxford, 1955
PLG
Poetae Lyrici Graeci, ed. T. Bergk, Leipzig, 1914–23 (also referred to as Bergk)
PMG
Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page, Oxford, 1962
P.Oxy.
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, London, 1898–
Radt
Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. B. Snell, R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, Go¨ttingen, 1971–
RE
Real-Encyclopa¨die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A. Fr. von Pauly, rev. G. Wissowa et al., Stuttgart and Munich, 1894–1980
SEG
Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden, 1923–
SH
Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones and P. J. Parsons, Berlin, 1983
Schwyzer
Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik, Munich, 1950–712
Abbreviations of ancient authors and works follow LSJ. Abbreviations of journals follow L’Anne´e Philologique. When available, I have used existing English translations of Greek and Latin passages. Any unattributed translations are mine. Translation of Aristotle, Poetics (pp. 77–9): reprinted by permission of the publisher and the Trustees of the Loeb Classical Library, from ARISTOTLE: VOLUME XXIII, Loeb Classical Library 1 Volume 199, translation by Stephen Halliwell, W. Hamilton Fyfe and Doreen C. Innes, revised by Donald A. Russell, pp. 39, 41, 43, 45, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright # 1927, 1995 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
This page intentionally left blank
Part I Greek Iambos (7th–4th cent. bce): Genre and Corpus
This page intentionally left blank
1 Approaching Genre 1 . A C O G N I T I V E V I EW O F A RC H A I C POETIC GENRES As often happens with ancient literary genres, most divergences on iambos in contemporary scholarship are due to a basic disagreement on what literary genres are.1 The view of literary genres that lies at the base of this work derives from studies on categorization that the cognitive sciences have developed in the Welds of psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and the growing Weld of cognitive poetics.2 An account of these views will tell what this book does and does not aim to do. Like any other aspect of human experience, the world of poetic discourse and performance in archaic Greece was a continuum, articulated in social and ritual practices. To apprehend this continuum, communities organized and categorized it in conceptual 1 A useful bibliography for a theory of ancient Greek poetic genres must necessarily remain multi-generic: Fa¨rber (1936); Harvey (1955); Rossi (1971); Calame (1974); Rosenmeyer (1985); Fowler (1987); Gentili (1988a), 32–49; Ka¨ppel (1992), 3–31; Bartol (1993a); Nagy (1994–5); Stehle (1997); Calame (1998); Depew and Obbink (2000), 1–14; Selden (2000); Most (2000); Furley and Bremer (2001), 1–64; Rutherford (2001), 3–136; Vardi (2001); Ford (2002), 250–71; Cingano (2003); Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 1–41; Ford (2006a); Lowe (2007). Conte (1992), as well as the introductory chapters of Conte (1994), with pp. 105–28, and Harrison (2007) are extremely enlightening for Hellenists working on genre theory. See also the volume edited by F. Budelmann (The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric, 2009), esp. Carey’s chapters on genre and iambos, which appeared when my book was in press. 2 For cognitive poetics see, Stockwell (2002); Gavins and Steen (2003). Cognitive approaches to literary genres can also be found in Fishelov (1995) and Sinding (2002). Lloyd (2007) discusses topics characteristic of cognitive sciences, such as colour perception, animal and plant taxonomy, etc., in a comparative study of Greek and Chinese culture.
4
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
systems, sometimes along the lines of those social and ritual practices.3 Literary criticism denominates these conceptual systems, ‘systems of genres’, and the categories within the system, ‘literary genres’. Literary genres are category concepts. Their referents are not entities in the world, but mental representations of abstract entities: conceptual groupings of poetic compositions. Unlike plants and animals, the entities associated with these mental representations are not natural, and unlike pieces of furniture, they are not manmade objects. They are verbal constructs, that is, cultural products that generate semantic meaning and are thus open to interpretation. It is precisely this semantic nature of poetic compositions that complicates their categorization and makes it far more blurred than that of natural entities or man-made objects.4 What a cognitive perspective on ancient literary genres attempts to do is to recover by means of ancient testimonies the complex nature of the mental representations to which the literary genres refer. In this book I aim to distinguish the various mental representations that underlie ancient testimonies on iambos, particularly before the Hellenistic period. In every given community literary genres create a semantic network, each genre obtaining signiWcance not only in itself, but also in relation to other categories in the system. We may, thus, deWne a system of genres as a cultural system of meaning shared by a community, consequently functioning as a means of communication. Literary genres, then, contribute to the organization and transmission of knowledge, particularly, but not exclusively, in the poetic realm. Rather than instruments of a dry taxonomy, literary genres are instruments of meaning,5 essential to the encoding and decoding of literature. By studying ancient literary genres as they are embodied in speciWc contexts we aim to recover the historical structures with
3 LakoV (1987), 6: ‘Without the ability to categorize, we could not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives. An understanding of how we categorize is central to any understanding of how we think and how we function, and therefore central to an understanding of what makes us human.’ 4 Berlin (1978), for example, shows the principles at work in folk taxonomies of the biological world, and Labov (2004) studies the categorization of vases, cups, and bowls. On fuzziness see JackendoV (2004), 123–5. 5 Fowler (1982), 22.
Approaching Genre
5
which the ancients organized their poetic experience (what cognitive science calls ‘idealized cognitive models’).6 This, in turn, may give us insights into the way the ancients organized their knowledge. In this sense ancient genre history belongs to the history of ideas. Essential to the cognitive sciences is the view that, rather than abstract and disembodied, the organization of knowledge is a function of speciWc circumstances and always has speciWc purposes. Furthermore, experimental studies of categorization show that diVerentiation, i.e. the perception of distinctive features, is only as detailed as speciWc contexts and purposes require.7 This drive to ‘cognitive economy’ holds true for ancient genres as well. Evidence suggests that the ancients resorted to diVerent ways of making categories and that they used a variety of taxonomies, corresponding to speciWc purposes. Aristotle’s song in honour of Hermias (Ath. 696a–697b ¼ PMG 842, 341 bce), classed by the ancients as either a paean or a skolion, exempliWes the way the ancients made category judgements according to diVerent purposes.8 Indeed, in ancient Greek social and ritual life we Wnd that function and performance scenario were crucial for categorization,9 together with certain formal and thematic features (e.g. hymenaios, threnos, paean).10 To the ancient professional musician, features of rhythm and harmony would be the most relevant ones for classiWcation (cf. the speciWc use of ªÅ, ‘genres’, in rhythmical theory, see Chapter 7, sect. 1). Of course, professional performers and musicians were more speciWc in 6 LakoV (1987), 68. Stockwell (2002), 32–3: ‘Idealised cognitive models (ICMs) are the structures with which we organise our knowledge. Cognitive models consist of relations between categories, set up socially, culturally, and on the basis of individual experience, as our means of understanding and negotiating the world and our lives through it.’ 7 Rosh (1978), 29: ‘one purpose of categorization is to reduce the inWnite diVerences among stimuli to behaviourally and cognitively usable proportions. It is to the organism’s advantage not to diVerentiate one stimulus from others when that diVerentiation is irrelevant to the purposes at hand.’ 8 Rutherford (2001), 92–7, with further references. Ford’s unpublished paper ‘The Genres and Occasions of Aristotle’s Skolion/Paean/Hymn/Hybrid for Hermias’ (presented at the 2008 APA Annual Meeting) explores Greek conceptions of poetic genre through Aristotle’s Hermias song and the traditions of its reception. 9 Theoretical remarks on genre and occasion in archaic poetry can be found in Nagy (1994–5); Cingano (2003), 45; Ford (2006a), 278–9. Cf. Rosenmeyer (1985), 81. 10 Found already in Homer: Il. 18.493 (ÆØ); Il. 24.721, Od. 24.61 (ŁæB); Il. 1.473, 22.391 (ÆØ); cf. Pind. fr. 56 CF ¼ 128c M.
6
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
their categorizations than the general public. Length would be most pertinent when thinking of performance at symposia or theatres, where time is of the essence. For educational purposes categorization was more intellectually orientated, and applied analytical tools to the traditional names of songs. We Wnd an example of the application of analytical categories to historical genres in the Platonic and Aristotelian categories of narrative, mimetic, and mixed, which later pervade ancient literary criticism.11 Eventually the physical constraints of the book roll also had an impact on classiWcation, and in turn transmitted generic categories by means of poetic editions12 and the ensuing use of titles in references and citations. Yet ancient editions of lyric poetry display, in Lowe’s words, ‘a bewildering variety of classiWcatory schemes’.13 In sum, there was no single universal organizing principle for ancient literary genres. On the contrary, at any given time there was more than one system of genres at work in the minds of ancient performers and audiences, and, with time, shifts of terminology occurred (e.g. epinikion, skolion, etc.).14 This has two important methodological implications for my work. First, no encompassing view of archaic poetic genres will be privileged, neither one deWned by performance scenario and function, nor one deWned by audience expectations, notwithstanding the importance of performance context. Second, in order to understand ancient testimonies on iambos I shall try to identify the implied classiWcation underlying individual testimonies. Consequently, I shall attempt to recover the meaning of the term iambos in each speciWc context of transmission, at the same time trying to discern the concept it appears to denote in view of the cognitive pattern from which it derives. Given that literary genres are the result of categorization, the very concept of categorization is at issue for us. The classical theory of categorization states that category judgements depend on necessary and suYcient attributes, that categories are discrete,15 invariant, and 11 For ancient references see Else (1957), 98 and Janko (1984), 128. 12 Vardi (2001). 13 Lowe (2007), 169. See also Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 25. 14 Lowe (2007), 167–9. 15 Labov (2004), 68: ‘By ‘‘discrete’’, it is meant that the categories are separated from each other by clear-cut discontinuities of form or function.’
Approaching Genre
7
that an item either belongs or does not belong to a single category.16 If we apply the classical theory of categorization to iambos as a literary genre, the question ‘is this speciWc poem an instance of iambos?’ can only be answered by checking the necessary and suYcient attributes of all iambic poems. Thus, following Diomedes’ deWnition: Iambus est carmen maledicum plerumque trimetro versu et epodo sequente compositum (‘Iambus is a maledictory poem, mostly composed of a trimeter and a following epode’, Diom. de poem., GL I p. 485, see Chapter 4, sect. 3), the necessary and suYcient features would be those of invective and iambic metres. Consequently, a fragment such as Archil. 19W, which in its fragmentary state does not show any traces of invective, would be out of the group. Similarly, the two extant fragments of Eucleides (see Chapter 2, sect. 2), which are written in hexameters, would be ruled out. Only a poem such as Archil. 21W (or 22W), which displays both invective elements and iambic metre, would be considered an instance of iambos, and consequently would be ruled out from membership of any other genre. This essentialist view of categorization, when applied to literary genres, creates the illusion of a very neat grid, what we may call the ‘checklist theory of genres’, on which Aristotle conferred immense credit. This theory, however, poses a fallacy that has been inherited by literary criticism for far too long: that genres are analysable in terms of necessary and suYcient features shared by all members. This classical view of genres, although economical and with a long tradition in Western cultures,17 proves inadequate when applied to historical data, because it cannot account for fuzzy areas. Going back to iambic poetry, it cannot account for historical phenomena such as the connection Aristotle makes between Archil. 19W or Eucleides 1 and 2W, and iamboi (see Chapter 2, sect. 2 and Chapter 3, sect. 1).
16 For a critical overview of the classical theory of categorization, see LakoV (1987), pp. xi–xvii, 5–11; Labov (2004). 17 Rosh (1978), 35: ‘cognitive economy dictates that categories tend to be viewed as being as separate from each other and as clear-cut as possible. One way to achieve this is by means of formal, necessary and suYcient criteria for category membership. The attempt to impose such criteria on categories marks virtually all deWnitions in the tradition of Western reason.’
8
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
To help us Wnd an alternative to the paradigm of necessary and suYcient features, theories of cognition provide conceptual tools suited to dealing with historical literary genres as non-discrete, or fuzzy, categories. The most useful in my research are the notions of ‘family resemblance’, ‘prototype’, ‘salient features’, ‘chunking’, ‘embodiment’, and ‘scripts’.18 Wittgenstein played a signiWcant role in the paradigm shift regarding categorization, with the notion of ‘family resemblance’, which he advanced in his treatment of ‘games’.19 Wittgenstein maintained that even though we cannot Wnd something common to all games, we may still Wnd a network of overlapping similarities between them: some games are competitive, some are amusing, some demand skill, luck, or patience. This network of criss-crossing similarities can be seen as analogous to similarities in a family, and thus Wittgenstein proposes that ‘ ‘‘games’’ form a family’.20 The analogy of family resemblance can account for the perception of types whose ‘boundaries cannot be deWned by any single set of characteristics’.21 This notion works extraordinarily well with literary genres, for even if we cannot pinpoint a distinctive feature shared by all the instances of a given genre, we still perceive those instances as participating in the genre because each of them shares some features with some of the other representatives of the genre. The notion of family resemblance has been fruitfully used in genre theory for some decades. However, its radical application to genre theory has been criticized, because, in principle, it can result in endless networks of resemblance. We should therefore remember that family resemblances among poetic works are historically and socially speciWed, and combine the perception of family resemblances with other cognitive principles, such as that of ‘prototypicality’ (see below).22
18 See Turner (1991), 150, for an invitation to take up the project of analysing genre theory in the light of the cognitive scientiWc study of conceptual connections. Rosh (1978) oVers a summary of basic psychological principles at work in human categorization. 19 Wittgenstein (1968), 31–2. For the application of the family analogy to genre theory, see Fishelov (1993), 53–83. 20 Wittgenstein (1968), 31–2. 21 Fowler (1982), 38; for literary genres as families see Fishelov (1993), 53–68. 22 As proposed by Fishelov (1993), 55–68.
Approaching Genre
9
The analogy of family resemblance is not completely foreign to studies of ancient literary genres. Ka¨ppel and Rutherford appropriate it in their works on the paean, without, however, completely abandoning the search for an ‘original, unifying principle’.23 Furley and Bremer’s study of hymnos includes types which diVer greatly in performance scenario, function, mode of performance, and features of form and content. The principle of family resemblance may well account for the fact that the ancients held a notion of hymn notwithstanding the variety within the genre.24 In those studies the use of words such as ‘typical’, ‘general’, and their cognates suggests that the notion of ‘prototypicality’ is, unsurprisingly, at work. In the case of iambos, as we shall see, Bowie signalled a methodological change towards a family resemblance approach when he postulated that iamboi ‘constituted a more loosely linked network of poetic types’,25 and that the components of the genre were an a` la carte menu.26 Empirical studies on categorization have conWrmed that family resemblance is indeed a principle that structures the formation of human categories. On the basis of several experiments in cognitive psychology Eleanor Rosh developed the ‘prototype theory’.27 Rosh found that when making category judgements people often identify ‘best’ examples, which serve as the cognitive representation of categories. She understands prototypes as ‘the clearest cases of category membership deWned operationally by people’s judgments of goodness of membership in the category’.28 Furthermore, people usually view other members of a category in relation to the prototypes. However, according to the classical theory of categorization, some examples should not be ‘better’ than others, since all members share the same properties. Therefore, prototype theory shows that participation in a category is often a matter of degree, and that categories frequently have a radial structure ‘with central good examples, secondary poorer examples and peripheral examples’.29 This view of 23 For a family resemblance approach to the generic problems involved in the paean see Ka¨ppel (1992) and Rutherford (2001). Ford (2006a) sums up the diVerent methodological positions involved in the studies of paean. 24 Furley and Bremer (2001), 1–63. 25 Bowie (2001a), 6. 26 Bowie (2002a), 37. 27 Rosh (1978). 28 Rosh (1978), 36. 29 Stockwell (2002), 29.
10
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
categorization has been adopted by genre theory,30 and empirical studies have shown its validity. One such study was carried out by David Fishelov, who focused on the way students organize and respond to generic categories. Fishelov corroborated the hypothesis that literary genres are organized around a ‘hard core’ of prototypical members, with a periphery of less representative members.31 In the ancient Greek perception of generic categories prototypical cases played a major role.32 Homer is the Wrst example that comes to mind (speaking of prototypes!). He was regularly viewed as the model and representative of epic poetry, to the point that the name Homer often stands for the genre of epic poetry. As we shall see particularly in Chapter 10, Archilochus was frequently perceived as the prototype of iambic poetry. I shall therefore consider ‘prototype’ as an additional criterion by which the ancients may have delineated conWgurations of texts, such as our iamboi. A common way of forming generic concepts consists in noting similarities between items, and ruling out diVerences. Such perceived similarities, those chosen for the purpose of a speciWc categorization, are ‘dominant’ or ‘salient’ features. Cultural anthropologists have found that in certain domains, such as colour, items have a graded position along a continuum. By applying similarity ratings they were able to Wnd the salient feature of each speciWc cultural domain. ‘The result is a smoothed out mapping of items in which general similarity relations are preserved but speciWc diVerences are lost.’33 In my work I refer to ‘dominant features’ as features that at some historical point are perceived as primary for the identiWcation of literary types. 30 Stockwell (2002), 28–30. 31 Fishelov (1995). 32 Rosenmeyer noted the inXuence of model thinking in antiquity: ‘Instead of genre criticism, the ancients practiced model criticism’ (Rosenmeyer (1985), 81). The notion of prototype as well as that of family resemblance, is used by Fishelov in his working deWnition of genre: ‘I deWne genre as a combination of prototypical, representative members, and a Xexible set of constitutive rules that apply to some levels of literary texts, to some individual writers, usually to more than one literary period, and to more than one language and culture’ (Fishelov (1993), 8). 33 D’Andrade (1995), 66. The notion of ‘dominant’ is a key concept of Russian Formalist literary theory, although it is applied there to literary evolution. Jakobson (1987), 41–6 uses for the dominant of a work of art expressions such as ‘mandatory and inalienable constituent’ (p. 41), whereas for the evolution of genres he indicates that ‘elements which were originally secondary become essential and primary’ (p. 44).
Approaching Genre
11
A binary categorization of praise and blame, for example, is based on the perception of those speciWc functions as dominant, and it works as long as other features are overlooked (such as aspects of form, context of performance, etc.). In Chapter 3, section 5, I deal with the topic of praise and blame, which with their many synonyms are basic, traditional macro-genres that pervade much Greek thought, and most often coexist with other forms of categorization. As Rosen has shown, poetry mocking named individuals shared a system of poetic structures that crosses chronological and generic boundaries, from Greek iambos and Old Comedy to Roman satire.34 In Chapter 10 I shall argue that invective is made explicit in our sources as a dominant feature of iamboi in the fourth century bce. Such conceptualization of the genre had a long life. For Catullus, for example, it seems that invective alone, even when written in ‘lyric’ metres, is enough to refer to a poem as iambus, whereas Lucian seems to conceive of iamboi in prose (Pseudol. 2).35 Needless to say, dominant features need not remain stable throughout the history of a literary genre. ‘Chunking’ is another useful concept developed by cognitive psychology. Because short-term memory is limited and cannot recall every possible feature of a speciWc item,36 and in order to reduce the load of information, people usually restrict the number of features, or recode or ‘chunk’ them into a single attribute, such as ‘birdness’.37 The new attribute is the result of a reduction. Therefore, when invective and scurrility are construed as salient features of iamboi, we may expect the adjective NÆ ØŒ to refer to that cluster. When iambic rhythm is in mind, NÆ ØŒ would refer to rhythm regardless of content and function. From this it follows that the way an attribute such as ‘iambic’ is used does not allow for reconstructing all possible features of a genre, but only salient features as they were ‘chunked’ by individual witnesses. ‘Embodiment’ is another useful notion furnished by the cognitive sciences. It implies that categorization is not merely an intellectual 34 Rosen (2007a). 35 For works in prose sharing the character of iambos, see Brown (1997), 15. 36 D’Andrade (1995), 42–4. 37 D’Andrade (1995), 44–5. See Eysenck and Keane (1995), 378–80, for chunking in chess.
12
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
matter, but that it combines body and mind.38 Indeed, generic categories in ancient Greece appear embodied in speciWc social, civic, or religious scenarios, such as the hymenaios in weddings, the threnos in funerals, the victory odes in victory celebrations. DiVerent religious occasions embody a variety of hymns. A special instance of embodiment is the institution of musical contests.39 Categories of competition embody and display speciWc forms of categorization, which in turn interact with historical genres. Poetic editions also embody genres, this time in a physical, material way. The fact that archaic poetic genres are embodied makes their performance dimension most relevant, at the same time ensuring the transmission of taxonomies. Finally, the notion of ‘script’ is helpful for the use of prototypical knowledge in more complex structures. The concept of script (also known as ‘schema’, ‘frame’, ‘scene’, and ‘scenario’) derives from schema theory, which was originally developed for computer programmes to process language.40 In order to understand texts, a certain background knowledge of real-life situations is necessary, a knowledge activated only when relevant. Applied to the Weld of poetics, we can deWne scripts as the background for the interpretation of poetry.41 From the Hellenistic period on, biographical information about Archilochus and Hipponax became available to audiences through commentaries and perhaps vitae. This information was part of the background against which references to the iambic poets, as well as iambic poetry itself, were interpreted. For example, mentioning Neoboule, Lycambes, or Boupalos, prototypical targets of invective by Archilochus and Hipponax, most probably triggered among audiences the script of ‘oVence–poetic attack and revenge–suicide’ schema, which I denominate the ‘iambic script’. Such a script is inherent, for example, to the composition of Hellenistic epigrams, as Ralph Rosen has recently shown,42 and it
38 Stockwell (2002), 27. 39 In Rotstein (in progress) I explore the role of musical contests in the conceptualization of archaic and classical Greek poetic genres. 40 See D’Andrade (1995), 122–49 for an overview of schema theory. Stockwell (2002), 75–89 applies schema theory to the Weld of poetics. 41 Stockwell (2002), 75–89. 42 Rosen (2007b).
Approaching Genre
13
is often explicitly oVered as explanation by commentaries and scholiasts.43 Let us now sum up the view of literary genres that I have presented so far, and see how it relates to the purpose of my work. One of the premisses of this book is that literary genres, as they were used by the ancients, are not deWned by necessary and suYcient features, that properties are not shared by all instances of a genre, that not all instances of a genre are representative in the same degree. This view of literary genres is fundamentally diVerent from the classical view of categorization implied in many studies of ancient genres. It acknowledges that the drive towards cognitive economy holds true for classical genres. Accordingly, diVerentiation in ancient perceptions of genres is only as detailed as speciWc contexts and purposes require: diVerent systems of genres exist, for diVerent purposes. Following the insights and experimental results of cognitive sciences I hold that literary genres in ancient Greece are structured by family resemblances, by prototypes, by salient (or dominant) features, and, to a lesser degree, by chunking and scripts. As other concepts referring to categories, literary genres have boundaries that might be extended or limited to a certain point, both synchronically and diachronically. Therefore, if ancient literary genres are fuzzy categories with no clearcut boundaries, the notion of Kreuzung der Gattungen (contamination of genres), usually attributed to Hellenistic poets, would describe a phenomenon inherent in literary genres, in which Hellenistic poets would have consciously engaged.44 Fuzziness, however, is not absolute. Tradition plays a major role as a stabilizing force in the development of ancient generic concepts.45 To be sure, ancient 43 For example, the scholiast to Ovid’s Ibis thus explains the words ‘tincta Lycambeo’ (l. 54): Licambes Neobulen Wliam suam Archilocho desponsauit et dotem promisit; quam quia postea negauit, Archilochus in iambico metro inuectiuam in ipsum fecit et tam turpia de eo dixit quod ipsum et uxorem et Wliam ad laqueos coegit: maluerunt enim mori quam sub turpibus obprobriis uiuere. See Rosen (1988d) for further references to the archaic iambographers in Ovid’s Ibis, and Schiesaro (2001) for the iambic nature of the poem. 44 Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 18. See also Fantuzzi (1980). Barchiesi (2001) illuminates the history of the concept of Kreuzung. Derrida (1980) applies the principle of contamination to literature as a whole (I am grateful to Tom Hawkins for the reference). 45 Fowler (1982), 42.
14
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
literary genres are socially and historically speciWed.46 Poetic categories are reinforced by society, through ritual, education, institutionalized competition, the use of poetic editions, and even by visual iconography.47 I tend to think of the categories thus fortiWed as ‘hard’ genres, as opposed to ‘soft’ genres, which lack marked social speciWcation or reinforcement. ‘Hard’ genres, of course, tend to appear as rather discrete.48 Greek iambos belongs to the group of ‘soft’ genres, genres not particularly strengthened by speciWc social institutions, and it received perhaps its strongest reinforcement from the time of its appearance in book editions, and from the moment that the ancient deWnitions were available to readers and scholars. What this book will not attempt to provide emerges from this concept of literary genres, namely, an answer to the question of what iambos is, an answer that would take the form of a deWnition, with a list of necessary features, perhaps complemented by a list of optional ones. As the title suggests, the object of my study is the history of the conceptualization of iambos as a literary genre, rather than the search for an all-encompassing deWnition of iambos. This is not merely an elegant way of avoiding the issue of deWnition, but an acknowledgement that deWnitions are often part of the problem rather than the solution. Surely, some people in the ancient world, mostly after Aristotle, thought of iambos with clear deWnitions in mind, formed by necessary and suYcient features, but I claim that when they actually made category judgements, very diVerent cognitive principles were at work. Needless to say, from the moment that deWnitions 46 Cf. Stockwell (2002), 32, for the concept of context dependency in categorization of literary genres. 47 Through attributes such as the kithara, the aulos, and the rhabdos, the visual representation of performers at formal contexts found in vase paintings enhances the relevance of music and musical instruments as means of categorization. See Shapiro (1992) and Bundrick (2005). 48 The interaction between categories of competition at musical contests and ‘traditional’ literary genres provides an insight into this distinction. ‘Hard’ genres would mostly overlap with categories of competition, which would in turn reinforce the perception of the genre as a distinct category (cf. rhapsody and epic poetry). ‘Soft’ genres, on the contrary, would not overlap with any category of competition, but would either be part of more than one category, or would be only one of many genres performed in that category (Rotstein (in progress)). As we shall see in Ch. 9, iambic poetry was performed by rhapsodes at musical contests as early as the 5th cent. bce. As symposia, musical contests are generally not exclusive to a single type of poetry.
Approaching Genre
15
of iamboi were available they inXuenced the conceptualization of iambos. However, although ancient deWnitions play a role in shaping concepts, they do not reXect the whole range in which those concepts were actually used. DeWnitions are transmitted by educational institutions, but in spite of their status they are but an additional component in the generic systems. For this reason I devote two chapters to ancient deWnitions (Chapters 3 and 4) before I turn to the study of pre-Aristotelian evidence (in Chapters 5 and 6). ‘One can either infer the features of the genre from a pre-deWned corpus or use a pre-deWned set of features as criteria for selecting the poets to be included in the corpus.’ This was a methodological remark I made in the introduction to my dissertation (2002), when I thought that it would be easy to infer the properties of iambos if only the full corpus had survived.49 This, I understand now, is a fallacy. There is no way to escape the hermeneutic circle. Even if we had the full corpus, our analysis of features would not necessarily coincide with the conceptual framework of ancient composers and audiences. They may well have ignored certain properties that seem essential to us, and favoured others, and that according to speciWc purposes; they may not always have been consistent in their generic judgements. Archaic poets and audiences did not hold a static concept of iambos, one deWned by necessary features. Therefore, the use of ancient testimonies in order to reconstruct the concept of iambos is not our desperate last resource, it is actually the best way to explore the cognitive patterns involved in references to iambos as a genre. We must, therefore, rephrase the question, and ask ‘what concept (or perhaps concepts) of iamboi were available in the archaic and classical period, and how did they develop—according to ancient sources?’ My answer will not take the form of a deWnition. Rather than an account of properties, or a discovery of explanatory origins, it will be an attempt to reconstruct a process. We will nevertheless 49 Rotstein (2002), 12. The editors of the 2001 volume Iambic Ideas were even more optimistic: ‘It is impossible to decide what texts are relevant to this project without a preliminary idea of genre and it is impossible to shape up a preliminary idea of genre without having selected certain texts in the hope that they will turn out to be relevant. Like many normal humanistic enterprises, this one was doomed to be circular, and happy to be circular’ (Cavarzere, Aloni, and Barchiesi (2001), p. xii).
16
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
gain a better idea of the notions involved, the contrasts and associations implied, a range of functions and contexts, up to the moment in which a sort of deWnition emerges in Aristotle and becomes dominant in the education and scholarly systems, thus circumscribing the course of the historiography of iambos.
2 . A P P ROAC H E S TO T H E G E N R E A N D C O R P U S OF IA MB OS General views about literary genres are implicit in any study of archaic iambos. Such views underlie not only inquiries into the nature of iambos, but also into the extension of the corpus of iambic poetry. In research on archaic iambos three main modalities can be distinguished: the search for necessary features according to the classical theory of categorization; the search for salient features; and the search for family resemblances. Needless to say, these general tendencies are often intertwined. The Wrst modality attempts to Wnd a unifying factor for all iamboi. In the course of the great progress made in the last Wfty years, scholarship has turned its attention especially to occasion of performance. In the 1960s and 1970s the coincidence of new papyrological discoveries with the emergence of newer streams of literary criticism prompted a reassessment of Greek archaic poetry, with an emphasis on orality. Under the stimulus of rising performance and reception studies, the relevance of both metre and content for drawing distinctions between Greek archaic genres began to be called into question.50 In the speciWc case of iambos, Dover’s seminal paper of 1964 brought to the fore the relevance of performance scenario. This survey of terminology oVers no grounds for doubting the conclusion which I drew from the community of ethos between the elegiacs and YÆ Ø of Archilochos: no grounds for believing that he regarded them as diVerent genres. It also leaves open the possibility that he used the word YÆ Ø with reference to all the forms of poem which he composed, their common
50 e.g. Dover (1964); Calame (1974); West (1974); Fowler (1987).
Approaching Genre
17
characteristic being not their metre or language but the type of occasion for which they were composed—their ‘social context’, in fact.51
Dover’s hypothesis that there was no generic diVerence between elegiacs and iamboi had a minor eVect on the Weld compared to the impact his statement about social context had on subsequent research. So West asserts: I believe the most fruitful line of inquiry to be that suggested by a remark of Dover’s (op. cit., p. 189), that the common characteristic of iambi might have been the type of occasion for which they were composed.52
Whereas Dover’s is perhaps the sentence most often cited in reference to archaic iambos, West’s hypothesis of a traditional public spectacle with some ritual basis is less widely accepted.53 Instead, there is more of a consensus about the symposion being the main occasion for the performance of iamboi,54 as well as for most forms of solo poetry.55 In addition, rhapsodic performances and re-performances at theatres have been proposed as alternative scenarios, though without claiming that this is a unifying factor (see Chapter 9).56 The change of focus to performance scenario, undoubtedly essential to an understanding of archaic poetic genres, does not imply a change of procedure. For no matter how much we develop a capacity 51 Dover (1964), 189. 52 West (1974), 23. West comments with regard to elegy that ‘in archaic Greece it was the occasion, not the metre, that conferred a name—paean, dithyramb, hymenaeus, partheneion, skolion’ (West (1974), 7). The skolion, however, is an example of manner of performance conferring a name to a type of song (Bowie (1986), 26). 53 For criticism of West’s theory, see Brown (1997), 40–1 with further references. 54 Bartol (1993a), 70 suggests both public meetings and symposia as circumstances of presentation. 55 Ro¨sler (1980); (1990), 230; Pellizer (1990); (1991a); (1991b); Vetta (1992); Stehle (1997), 212–61 (with the following qualiWcation: ‘I assume a closed setting, not necessarily the standard symposium, for the preserved iambic, which has shed ritual associations’ Stehle (1997), 215 n. 11); Kantzios (2005), 12–20. For further references on the performance of iambos, see Ch. 9. Reassessment of the context and the ritual background of the performance of iamboi developed into a discussion on whether named individuals targeted by iambic poets are Wctitious (West (1974); Nagy (1976)), real (Ro¨sler (1976); Bonanno (1980); Gentili (1988a), 294 n. 50; Carey (1986)), or historically real people treated according to the iambographic poetic conventions (Rosen (1988c)). 56 Bartol (1992a); Rotstein (2002), 143–66; Lavigne (2005). Steinru¨ck (2000) shifted the focus to the audience of iamboi, postulating young single males as the intended audience at the symposion and komos.
18
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
to envisage the performance contexts of archaic poetry, we remain dependent on formal features for pragmatic purposes such as delineating a corpus. This issue emerges clearly in West’s contribution of 1974: If a man with a revolver requires me to say plainly how much of what I have collected in Iambi et Elegi I believe to have been called YÆ Ø at the time of its composition, I will answer perhaps half of Archilochus, some of Semonides; nearly all of Hipponax and Ananius; the Anacreon epodes; the Margites; Susarion; the Hermippus pieces; Aristoxenus; Asopodorus. As for the rest—the other half of Archilochus, Solon, etc.—it is understandable that the name should subsequently have been extended to include it. It had no name of its own, any more than most elegy did. When the principle of classifying poems by metre established itself, if not before, all poems in trimeters were grouped together, iambi and non-iambi; similarly with tetrameters and epodes. ( . . . ) Given a Wxed collection of trimeter or tetrameter poems, many of which could be and were referred to as iambi, it was natural that the name should come to be applied to the whole collection.57
While performance scenario is considered the unifying element for the genre, in practice the corpus remains deWned by thematic features, and it is ultimately the criterion of content which helps West distinguish between iambos in the ‘true and original sense’ and ‘other verse in similar metres’: I suggest that we may recognize iambus most conWdently in those types of subject matter for which elegiacs are never used: that is, in explicitly sexual poems, in invective which goes beyond the witty banter we found in elegy, and in certain other sorts of vulgarity. These are, of course, the very elements that are especially associated with the iambic name.58
The result is a narrow corpus distinguished by features of content. Similarly, when the original ritual background of the archaic iambos is emphasized, aischrologia is taken as a characteristic feature of the genre. So in Brown (1997), who Wnds the upholding of traditional values through aischrologia (sometimes by inversion) a central function of the genre.59 57 West (1974), 37–8. 58 West (1974), 25. 59 Brown (1997), 41–2; cf. Carey (1986), 65.
Approaching Genre
19
The diYculties involved in the choice of a single deWning feature for archaic iambos, such as performance scenario, metre, or content, did not escape subsequent studies of archaic iambic poetry. Rosen (1988a), for example, favours content but is nevertheless aware of its limitations: I use the term ‘iambos’ to indicate a poetic genre, distinguished by content rather than meter, although as the word implies, most iamboi were composed in iambics. Much poetry will not belong strictly speaking to the iambos, such as the tragic trimeter, or the bulk of Solon’s iambic verse. The content of the iambos could be quite varied, and not all the surviving fragments are ł ªØ.60
Aware of the role played by the interpretation of the generic label in understanding the archaic iambos, Bartol (1993a) stresses the need to recover both contentual and formal features, including metre.61 More recently Kantzios (2005) has shown the tension between genre and corpus: although he understands iambos as ‘a body of poetry uniWed by context of performance, means of presentation and meter’, he uses the term iambus to ‘denote poetry composed in iambic meter, whether trimeters, tetrameters or epodes, regardless of content’.62 Rosen, Bartol, and Kantzios are indicative of a shift towards the second modality in research on iambos, which, instead of necessary and suYcient features, attempts to discern what is most characteristic of the nature and function of the genre, that is to say, salient features. This Wgures particularly in anthropological approaches to iambos. Nagy (1976, 1979), for example, considers blame poetry to be the primary function of Archilochus’ iamboi.63 Gentili (1988) also subsumes iambos under the category of blame poetry though maintaining that iambic poetry is ‘receptive to a vast range of themes and topics—civil, political, didactic, autobiographical’.64 Similarly Rosen, in spite of his emphasis on the psogic (i.e. invective) side of the work of the archaic iambographers (1988),65 allows that ‘in some cases verbal abuse and vituperative satire became for ancient audiences the hallmark of a poet’s style even if his poetry, taken as a whole, was in fact much more varied. This was certainly true, for example, of the 60 Rosen (1988a), 3. 62 Kantzios (2005), 29. 64 Gentili (1988a), 36.
61 Bartol (1993a), 38. 63 Nagy (1976); Nagy (1979), 245. 65 Rosen (1988a).
20
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
archaic Greek poet Archilochus.’66 Among some of these studies there is a tendency to ‘open’ the genre, so to speak, and Wnd elements of the iambic tradition in the Homeric epics, most particularly in the Wgures of Thersites and Odysseus, as well as in other lyric types. In other words, salient features are traced in other genres, resulting in an extended perception of iambos.67 On the way to the third modality, research on Hellenistic revivals of iamboi played a major role,68 such as studies on Herondas and Cercidas, who re-formulated the genre by splitting the components of the traditional deWnition of iambos. Cercidas of Megalopolis composed a collection entitled Meliamboi ( º Æ Ø). These are invective poems written in Doric dialect and lyric metre, that is melos in form (or metre) and ‘iambic’ in content.69 Herondas wrote Mimiamboi (Ø Æ Ø), mimes in choliambic metre, written in an imitation of the Ionic dialect found in Hipponax. As the diVerent meanings of ‘iamb’ in these two titles suggests, ‘the iambic’ could refer to either content or to metre.70 To put it in Fantuzzi and Hunter’s words, Cercidas and Herondas ‘disassembled and reassembled’ the traditional components of the iambos.71 Thus from the point of view of these Hellenistic revivals, the term iambos could cover either iambic metre or iambic content. This phenomenon emerges after Aristotle, but it does not apply back to the archaic and classical periods.
66 Rosen (2007a), 3. 67 Focusing on the poet’s ‘I’, Miralles (1989) views iambos as a literary genre articulated round the Wgure of the trickster (Miralles (1989), 112). Lavigne explores the persona of the poet as the distinguishing feature of the genre. Lavigne (2005), 5: ‘The main stylistic feature of any iambic poem, from Archilochus to Horace, is the poet-persona.’ 68 e.g. Cunningham (1971), 3–17; Depew (1992); Lomiento (1993), 31–40; Cameron (1995), 141–73; Kerkhecker (1999), 1–10; Acosta-Hughes (2002), 1–3. 69 Lomiento (1993), 31–40. 70 It seems that Phoenix of Colophon (3 bce) also composed a collection of poems entitled YÆ Ø. Athenaeus, at any rate, introduces two quotations with the expression K E N Ø Kd çغŠ(359e) and æd ˝˝ˇ ºªø K fiH æ fiø H N ø (360a). In addition, Athenaeus calls Phoenix NÆ Ø at 8.59.11. In two of his six surviving choliambic fragments of moralizing content (frr. 2.17 and 6.1) Phoenix of Colophon uses the term YÆ for his own poems. 71 Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 26–41.
Approaching Genre
21
In West (1974) we Wnd simultaneously a restriction and an ampliWcation. On the one hand, as we have seen, his concept of the ‘true iambus’ or ‘iambus in the strict sense’72 leaves out many nonelegiac poems included in his IEG. On the other hand, he is prepared to class as iambos works usually ascribed to other genres, such as the pseudo-Homeric Margites, composed in dactylic hexameters interspersed with iambic trimeters, Epicharmus’ anapaestic Dancers and Epinikios, and the only extant fragment by Aristoxenus of Selinus, also in anapaests.73 For the restriction West gives a very plausible explanation: for practical reasons other verse in similar metres would have been included in the Hellenistic editions of ‘iamboi’. For the ampliWcation, however, it is the hypothesis of a public entertainment with ritual origins that justiWes the inclusion of fragments from diVerent metrical or rhythmical traditions. They are included because they display certain features that are perceived as iambic.74 A similar expansion or extension of the corpus appears in some reference books. Gerhard (1914) and Degani (1988a), who surveyed the Greek iambos from the seventh century bce until Byzantine times, applied both thematic and metrical criteria, or rather either of them. The result is an extended catalogue of works showing blame, obscenity, and satiric elements, on the one hand, and works written in iambic metre on a variety of subjects, such as history and grammar, on the other.75 A further step is taken by studies that programmatically look for ‘iambic features’ in other genres. The volume Iambic Ideas (2001), which collects papers given at Trento in 1998, provides an insight into the manner in which early Greek iambos pervaded later Greek and Roman literary traditions. Some of the papers in this collection explore the presence of ‘the iambic’ in later iambic poets (Edmunds 72 West (1974), 34. 73 West (1974), 30, 34–5. On the Margites see Ch. 3, sect. 6; on Epicharmus and Aristoxenus see Ch. 7, sect. 4. 74 The fact remains that Dorian plays and the Margites are never labelled iamboi in ancient sources. 75 Gerhard (1914), for example, includes in his survey Castorion of Soli (4th/3rd cent. bce), who wrote a hymn to Pan in iambic trimeters (PMG 447 and SH 144–5), Diogenes Sinopensis’ æƪfiøæØÆ, Eupolis, Monimus, Chrysogonos, Axiopistus’ gnomai, Chares’ gnomai (3rd cent. bce, whom LSJ refers to as iambographer), Demetrius of Alexandria, and Critias of Chios.
22
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
on Callimachus, Russo on Ennius, Heyworth on Catullus, Barchiesi, Harrison, and Watson on the Epodes of Horace); others, its presence in other genres (Aloni on Sappho, Andrisano on Alcaeus, and Zanetto on Old Comedy).76 Although these studies do not, for the most part, inquire into the nature of archaic iambos, they work within the paradigm of salient features: ‘the iambic’ is a feature of content, function, or metre. This type of study shares an approach that looks for resemblances beyond the traditional views inherited from ancient scholarship. However, from the point of view of the ancients’ use of terms, there is no evidence for a general ‘Erweiterung’ of the genre, as Lennartz (2000) rightly argued through an examination of instances of the terms YÆ and NÆ E that had been claimed to refer to poems according to their character and tone, regardless of their metre (see Chapter 11, sect. 4).77 The third modality in research on archaic iambos was spelled out by Bowie in a paper presented at the 1998 Trento conference. He suggests that since no feature is shared by all poems in the iambic corpus, one should try to Wnd instead a network of similarities. We may postulate that iamboi constituted a more loosely linked network of poetic types, into which all the above-mentioned fragments fell: that within that network the iambic trimeter was the most commonly used metre; and that within that network poems involving ł ª were also suYciently prominent for the term NÆ Ç Ø to develop the meaning ‘abuse’.78
Furthermore, Bowie argues that narrative may be a generic marker of iambos, as it appears in more than 50 per cent of the fragments.79 He concludes: Iambos was a form of poetry in which a number of identifying features regularly appeared: narrative, speeches embedded in narrative, ł ª (‘vituperation’) either in the narrative frame or in such speeches, self-defence that naturally led to criticism of others, just occasionally reXection or exhortation. Any of these might be addressed to an individual, sometimes to a group. No one of these features needed to be present for a poem to be 76 Cavarzere, Aloni, and Barchiesi (2001). 77 Lennartz (2000a). 78 Bowie (2001a), 6. 79 Bowie (2001a), 6. Mu¨lke’s study of Solon’s tetrameters (frr. 32–5) and trimeters (frr. 36–7) shows that contemporary events could be the subject-matter of a political iambos (Mu¨lke (2002)).
Approaching Genre
23
recognized as (an) iambos, and in some metrical types or in some poets certain features may have been commoner than in others, as ÆrØ [animal fables] seem to be commoner in Archilochus’ epodes than in his other iamboi. With such an a` la carte menu for the components of an iambos, it may not always have been easy for either poet or audience to perceive immediately when existing patterns were being varied.80
Hints of this third modality had already appeared in previous studies which, beyond diVerences in their approach to topics such as the relationship between iambos and Old Comedy, share a fundamental assumption: that iambos is not restricted to a speciWc subject matter (abuse, vituperation, etc.). Degani (1988a), whose edition of Hipponax has become standard (1983, 19912), explicitly rejected West’s distinction between ‘giambo ‘‘vero’’ e ‘‘non vero’’ ’,81 and found within archaic iambos a serious and didactic side.82 Bartol (1993a) recovered the relevance of metrical features for iambic poems,83 and (following Jaeger)84 emphasized the paraenetic elements in archaic iambos,85 especially in Archilochus.86 Correˆa’s study of martial narrative in Archilochus, by making no metrical distinction, suggests that military narrative in iambic trimeters and/or trochaic tetrameters could have been covered by the term YÆ Ø.87 As for myself, I adopted the family resemblance approach to the genre (combined with the assumption of a ‘hard core’ of prototypical members) from the beginning of my study of iambos in 1998. I was searching for a more dynamic approach to genre, probably not aware of the tremendous methodological shift that this approach would imply for my work in the long run.88 For this third modality does not restrict the 80 Bowie (2002a), 37 ¼ Bowie (2001a), 26. 81 Degani (1988a), 1009. 82 Degani (1988a), 1008–9. 83 Bartol also explores the possibility of musical performance of iamboi (1992b) and their public performance at theatres (1992a). She has made a major contribution to the Weld by bringing together the ancient testimonies on elegy and iambos, thus supplementing Fa¨rber’s 1936 collection of our ancient evidence on lyric poetry. Bartol’s compilation, though almost complete, still leaves aside some testimonia such as Philodemus, — æd —ØÅ ø (e.g. P.Herc. 1074 col. 105, P.Herc. 1081 fr. 52) or Herondas 8. 84 Jaeger (1945), 121–4. ‘Closer examination shows that Archilochus’ iambics have a parainetic, or hortatory, aspect which is quite as important as their critical and lampooning aspect, and which in fact is essentially akin to it’ (p. 121). 85 Bartol (1993a), 74. 86 Bartol (1991). 87 Correˆa (1998), 179–269, 320. 88 Rotstein (1999), 4; (2002), 17–20.
24
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
iambic corpus to poems displaying abusive and scoptic elements, but includes all within the limits of the iambic metres. When iambos is thus taken as a broad genre, we cannot Wnd in the poems themselves one single common feature. Only a network of family resemblances can account for the range of topics and literary devices. The fact that modern scholarship approaches iambos through the modalities of distinctive features, salient features, or family resemblances is not fortuitous. In fact, modern scholarship inherited from the ancients the clash between these diVerent approaches. As we shall see in Chapter 4, ancient deWnitions operate for the most part within a paradigm of deWning features. However, more incidental references (i.e. not theoretical ones), suggest that ancient authors thought of iambos primarily within the paradigm of family resemblances, prototypes, and salient features. In the next chapter I shall explore the impact of the various approaches to the genre of iambos on the deWnition of alternative corpora of iambic poetry.
2 The Corpus of Iambic Poets Inquiry into the concept of the archaic iambos is necessarily interwoven with the question of the extent of the corpus of iambic poets. DiVerent approaches to the genre of iambos result in diVerent corpora of iambic poetry, and vice versa. Three main ways of delineating a corpus of iambic poetry can be seen to arise from modern research. The ‘narrow iambos’ results from thinking that the true, original archaic iambos can be recognized only in speciWc metres (Ionic non-dramatic verse composed in iambic trimeters, trochaic tetrameters, and epodic strophes) displaying speciWc contents (invective, etc.).1 The ‘extended iambos’ results from considering thematic and metrical criteria separately and thus including poems composed either in iambic metres (e.g. Solon’s iambic trimeters, Panarces’ riddles) or displaying speciWc contents (e.g. the Margites). As a result, poems that have a claim to or are attested as belonging to other genres, even beyond the Ionic tradition, may be included in the corpus. In both the ‘narrow iambos’ and the ‘extended iambos’ a concept of the genre comes Wrst, determining the extent of the corpus. To avoid circularity an external point of reference is needed. If we were working with contemporary literature, we could write a questionnaire and ask informants to Wll it in, very much as Fishelov did with
1 Kantzios (2005), 161, applies the term ‘narrowed’ iambos to the iambic poems involving invective and coarse language.
26
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
his students.2 For ancient genres, however, we have to Wnd our informants among surviving ancient authors, even if the evidence is for the most part late. We may speak of the ‘received iambos’, if we are willing to include in our corpus of iambic poetry merely the works of poets who have been explicitly linked to iambos at some point in antiquity. The word ‘received’ thus not only alludes to the attempt to base the corpus on explicit evidence, but also acknowledges that explicit evidence depends very much on which authors were ‘received into’ (KªŒæØŁ ) the genre by Hellenistic scholars.3 The ‘narrow iambos’ operates within a paradigm of distinctive features, and is consistent with ancient deWnitions. The ‘extended iambos’ operates within a paradigm of salient features, family resemblance, and prototypes. Similarly the ‘received iambos’, with the added value of being historically anchored. The ‘received iambos’ is also consistent with the purpose of my work, namely, to study the crystallization of the concept of iambos as a literary genre from explicit ancient references. In what follows I shall survey candidates for the corpus of iambic poetry and examine whether at some point a poet dated between the seventh and fourth centuries bce was termed iambic (NÆ Ø ; NÆ ªæç; N ø ØÅ ) or was attributed iamboi, or whether any of his/her extant fragments is quoted as coming from iambos (either as a type of poem or as the title of an edition). Since explicit testimonies are not only few but often inconclusive, I will also consider whether a poet’s output displays iambic elements, either in metre or content—that is, the cluster of Œ Ø (mock), åº ıÇ Ø (joke), ºØæ E (abuse), ÆNå溪 E (use obscene language), ŒÆŒºª E (speak ill of), łª Ø (abuse, slander)—or in structure or overall eVect. 2 Fishelov’s First Questionnaire oVers a list of ten names of literary genres and asks students to write next to each the Wrst things that come to mind within 30 seconds. The Second Questionnaire gives a list of 55 possible characteristics of literary works, names of famous authors and of literary works. After reading the list students are given ten names of literary genres, and they have 30 seconds to match each genre with items from the list. The Third Questionnaire oVers a list of ten literary works and asks students to mark Wve which they consider to be most representative of the novel. Fishelov (1995), 124–6. 3 PfeiVer (1968), 206.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
27
1 . C A N O N VS . C O R P U S We have no explicit contemporary information about the generic aYliation of archaic authors, except for Archil. 215W, which is usually understood as referring to Archilochus’ own poetic output: ŒÆ h N ø h æøºø º Ø. (Archil. 215W) I do not care about iamboi or pleasures.
In Chapter 5 I discuss the meaning of the term iamboi in this fragment. Self-referential uses of the label iamboi will appear again in the Hellenistic period.4 In the classical period Herodotus and Aristotle link Archilochus to iambos, and Aristophanes refers to an iambos by Hipponax (see Chapter 7). Archilochus was then very popular, and, as we shall see in Chapter 10, was already perceived as the representative of a type of poetry.5 While knowledge of both Archilochus and Hipponax is well attested in the third century bce,6 it is only from the second century bce on that we Wnd evidence linking Semonides to iambos.7 It may be correct to infer, based on this evidence, that Archilochus had achieved a sort of ‘canonical’ status already in the Wfth century bce, whereas Hipponax and Semonides did so respectively in the third and second centuries.8 If we could approach ancient scholars as informants and ask them for a list of authors that they consider iambic, we would obtain
4 Callimachus (iamb. 1.191.3, and again in line 21), Herondas (8.77), and Phoenix (frr. 2.17 and 6.1). 5 Ancient testimonies on Archilochus have been collected by Tarditi (1968), 3–55. On Archilochus’ reputation in antiquity, see Blumenthal (1922); Bossi (1990); Clay (2004), Rotstein (2007a). 6 Degani assembled (1991, 1–22) and studied (1984) the ancient testimonies on Hipponax. 7 By Aristophanes of Byzantium (in Hist. An. 2.621.4 he mentions the title K E N Ø; cf. Ael. de Nat. Anim. 11.36.6); the grammarian Demetrius of Scepsis (at fr. 3.5 ¼ Ath. 658b ¼ Sem. 22W, he introduces a quotation with the formulaic K N fiø y Iæå); and Lysanias of Cyrene (Ath. 620c). 8 For the notions of canon and canon-making see the articles collected by Finkelberg and Stroumsa (2003), with further references. For kanones as measuring-sticks brought on stage in Aristophanes’ Frogs, cf. Ford (2002), 281.
28
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
similar results. For rather than making comprehensive lists, ancient scholars tended to make selections of best writers.9 Their answer would then take the form of a list of KªŒæØŁ , or as we might say, a canonical list. We hear from Quintilian that for Aristarchus (2nd cent. bce) Archilochus was the best of the three ‘received’ iambic poets: Itaque ex tribus receptis Aristarchi iudicio scriptoribus iamborum ad hexin maxime pertinebit unus Archilochus (Inst. 10.1.59) (‘Thus of the three writers of iambi admitted by Aristarchus’ judgement, Archilochus alone will most especially reach rhetorical Xuency’).10 The names of the other two poets in the trio, Hipponax and Semonides, are supplied by late antique references.11 Diomedes mentions Hipponax along with Archilochus (de poem., GL I p. 485, l. 13), and the tenth-century Tractatus Coislinianus 387 speaks of Semonides, Archilochus, and Hipponax. Tzetzes oVers an isolated reference to Ananius instead of Semonides: IæØæ E b NÆ ªæçØ Æ Æ; æå ºå; HÆ (in Lyc. ii.18 Scheer). If, as Vardi suggests,12 ancient enumerations of authors follow a scheme of a constant core with a Xexible periphery, I suggest that the core of the ancient canon of iambographers was made up of Archilochus as central member, Hipponax and Semonides as secondary members, and Ananius as peripheral. It is perhaps not surprising that authors not considered representative of the genre and therefore not included in lists of those recommended as models of language and style, were rarely quoted and thus hardly preserved, whereas the three
9 PfeiVer (1968), 204–7; Vardi (2003), 133–4. 10 PfeiVer (1968), 204; cf. Cic. Att. 16.11.2: cui ut Aristophani Archilochi iambus sic epistula longissima quaeque optima videtur. 11 Evidence for the canon of iambic poetry: Choerob. ad Heph. 5.1 p. 227.21s. Consbruch: NÆ Øf b ŒÆº E e Øø Å ŒÆd æå ºå ŒÆd ÆŒ Æ; Schol. [A] Heph. 5.1 p. 116.18s. Consbruch: NÆ ØE: x `æå ºå › ÆŒ ; Cyrill. Lex., An. Par. 4.196.16 Cramer: NÆ Ød ª . Øø Å; æå ºå; HÆ; Procl. Chrestom. 7 ap. Phot. Bibl. 239: ø b ØÅ Æd æå ºå › —æØ ¼æØ ŒÆd Øø Å › æªØ X; ‰ ØØ; Ø; ŒÆd HÆ › ¯ çØ; Lucian (Pseudol. 2) mentions Archilochus, Simonides, and Hipponax; Philodem. De Poem. P. Herc. 1074 col. 105, 2–26 mentions Archilochus, Hipponax, and Semonides. On Aristarchus’ canon of the iambographers see SteVen (1876), 33–4; Kro¨hnert (1897), 21 V., 32 V.; PfeiVer (1968), 204; Kerkhecker (1999), 3. 12 Vardi (2003), 140.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
29
iambographers were edited and studied according to their gradation in the canon. Indeed, Archilochus, Hipponax, and Semonides were edited in Alexandria at some point in the third or second centuries bce. Semonides and Hipponax were each edited in at least two books, the editions probably bearing the title iamboi.13 The Alexandrine edition of Archilochus’ poems seems to have been arranged by metre,14 with four sections or four books: Elegies,15 Trimeters,16
13 Evidence for the edition of Semonides’ iamboi in two books: Øø Å K æ fiø N fiø (Erennius Philo, de Diversis Verborum SigniWcationibus, kappa 104.3, p. 186 Palmieri, 73 Nickau, the source is the grammarian Tryphon (Augustan period) ¼ 10aW); Øø Å K ı æfiø N ø (Ath. Epit. 57d ¼ Eust. in Hom. Od. 11.299 (1686.51) ¼ 11W); Øø Å ı æfiø (Antiattic. in Bekker, Anecd. 105.3 ¼ 35W; with reference to the word ŒæºÅ); cf. Schol. Ar. Pax 697–9. Evidence suggests that the edition of Semonides’ iamboi was not organized by metre: Øø Å Å Ø K N fiø y Iæå (Ath. 658b ¼ 22W); Øø Å K N Ø (Ath. 299c ¼ 8W); Øø Å b K E N Ø (Clem. Paed. 2.8.64.3–4 ¼ 16W); Øø Å N Ø (Schol. Eur. Phoen. 207 (i.277.17 Schwartz) ¼ 10W); Øø Å K N Ø (Ath. 460b ¼ 26W; Et. Gen. (Miller, Me´langes 87); Et. Magn. p. 270.44; Zonaras p. 539 ¼ 18W; Harpocr. p. 209.6 Dindorf ¼ 37W, with no quotation). Evidence for the edition of Hipponax’ iamboi: ‰ ŒÆd HÆ K Æ0 N ø ½fiø v.l.] çÅ (Erotianus, Lex. Hippocr. 10 p. 77.17 Nachmanson ¼ 24W); K fiH æ fiø H N ø (Pollux 4.169.9 ¼ 10.113.6 ¼ 148aW); K b fiH æ fiø H ÆŒ N ø (Pollux 10.99 ¼ 173W); K fiH æ fiø N fiø ÆŒ (Choerob. in Heph. p. 195.15 ¼ 43W); Ææa ÆŒ Ø K fiH æ fiø N ø (Choerob. in Heph. p. 199.12 ¼ 20W; text emended by HoVmann, originally: H æ ø YÆ Þ; HÆ b Å Ø æ fiø (Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.321 p. 284.5 Wendel ¼ 2aW: æe Þ; K æ fiø b N fiø j Æ (Tzetzes. Chil. 10.370 f. ¼ 2W); Æ . . . N fiø æ fiø (Tzetzes schol. Chil. p. 547 Leone ¼ 3aW); æ fiø N fiø (Tzetzes, Chil. 5. 728 V. ¼ 6W); K fiH ŒÆ a ´ıºı æ fiø N fiø (Tzetzes in Lyc. 219 p. 102.16 Scheer ¼ 3W; cf. Tzetz. Exeg. Il. A 14 p. 76.8 Hermann ¼ 4W); K fiH æ fiø H ½¸ı Æ N ø (Schol. in Nic. Th. 633c.3 ¼ fr. 42 Masson); Hipponax in primo (Prisc. Gramm. Lat. iii. 426.16 ¼ 35W); HÆ ı æfiø (Antiattic. in Bekker, Anecd. Gr. i.85.23 ¼ 142W); fiH ı æfiø
H ÆŒ N ø (Pollux 10.18 ¼ 118aW). Athenaeus quotes Hipponax 15 times; twice only he speciWes K E N Ø but with no reference to book numbers (Ath. 324a ¼ 166W; Ath. 370a ¼ 104W). 14 See Hauvette (1905), 97–112 on the Alexandrine edition of Archilochus. 15 æå ºå K Kº ª Ø (Ath. 483d ¼ 4W; Orion, Etym. col. 22 Sturz ¼ 14W). Papyrological evidence supports the existence of a book consisting of poems by Archilochus in elegiac metre (P.Oxy. 854, 207, 4708), see Obbink (2005), (2006). 16 æå ºå . . . K E æØ æØ (Eust. in Hom. p. 518.27 ¼ 18W); æå ºå b æØ æØ (Harpocr. s.v. ƺ ŒØ ¼ 36W).
30
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
Tetrameters,17 and Epodes.18 It seems likely that some of the iambographers’ poems also circulated in gnomologia, as Bowie suggests for Plutarch’s citation of Sem. 5W19 and I suggest for Tzetzes’ citation of Archil. 215W (see Chapter 5). An alternative to the Alexandrine edition of Archilochus organized by metre emerges from Athenaeus’ mode of citation. In his seventeen quotations of Archilochus only twice does Athenaeus refer to speciWc books or sections, the elegies (483d: K Kº ª Ø ¼ 4W) and the tetrameters (415d: K æÆ æØ ¼ 167W), although the latter could be an inference from metre, since the poem appears to be an epode (fr. 168W).20 He does not use the generic K N fiø, as Pausanias does for a poem in tetrameters (7.10.6 ¼ 93bW: æå ºå K N fiø), a form of reference already used by Aristotle (K fiH N fiø; K
fiH N fiø y Iæå, Arist. Rh. 1418b ¼ 19W). If Athenaeus consulted a text, as Bowie believes,21 he preferred to refer to the poems with no generic term nor reference to a speciWc section, book, or book number. It is possible, therefore, that Athenaeus used an edition of Archilochus that was not organized by metre. Such an edition could have stemmed from a centre of learning that privileged non-formalistic views of poetry, such as Pergamon under Crates of Mallos, as we shall see in Chapter 4, section 5.22 Although Occam’s razor would 17 Ææ æåغ åfiø K æÆ æØ (Syrianus, in Hermog., i.73.8 Rabe ¼ 105W; Syrianus, in Hermog. i.30.24 Rabe ¼ 131W); æå ºå b K æÆ æØ (Ath. 415d ¼ 167W, with no quotation but probably referring to 168W); K E
æÆ æØ (Heph. Ench. 8.7, with no quotation, but probably referring to 168W, which is an epode). 18 æå ºå K KfiøE (Heph. Ench. 7.2. ¼ 195W); æå ºå . . . K E KfiøE (St. Byz. p. 507.5 Meineke ¼ 204W, with no quotation); æå ºå . . . K KøfiH (Heph. Ench. 7.3 ¼ 182W). Zenobius has K Kfiøfi B (sic) for a trimeter belonging to an epode, namely 201W. Cf. Et. Gen. (An. Par. 4.44.12 Cramer); Et. Magn. p. 495.32; Et. Gud. col. 305.3 Sturz; Orion, Etym. col. 82.21 Sturz, s.v. ŒÆ ÆæÆŁÆØ ( ¼ 200W) for a reference to a commentary on Archilochus’ epodes (o ø yæ K Æ Ø ð-ÆØ Gen. A) KfiøH æåغ åı). 19 Bowie (1997), 105. 20 Bowie (2000), 131 Wnds Athenaeus’ reference puzzling, though not so much as to make him doubt that Athenaeus consulted texts of Archilochus. 21 Bowie (2000). 22 Finkelberg (2006) argues for the coexistence of regional centres of book production in the Hellenistic period: ‘. . . the standardization of a text can only be achieved through the intervention of a central authority. No overarching central authority, however, was in existence in Hellenistic Greece. Or, to put it the other way round,
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
31
count against postulating two diVerent editions of Archilochus’ poems, one organized by metre (Alexandria) and one not (Pergamon?), Athenaeus’ failure to refer more speciWcally to editions of Archilochus is disturbing, even more so because he is our best witness for Semonides’ edition of iamboi (see also on Hermippus below). Perhaps our understanding of ancient references to book titles should be revised. Indeed, technical authors (grammarians, scholiasts, metricians, etc.) use metrical terms for introducing quotations, while other authors employ generic terms for the most part, unless they want to display their knowledge of metre (for example, by using the term ‘choliambs’ for verses coming from Callimachus’ book of iamboi). To be sure, references to Archilochus’ Trimeters, Tetrameters, and Epodes come from sources with speciWc scholarly and metrical interests, such as Hephaestion, Harpocration, Stephanus of Byzantion, Syrianus, and Eustathius. It is, therefore, diYcult to discern whether they actually used an edition or made inferences from metre. The lives of the three iambographers, their texts, and language, were topics of interest for ancient scholars and commentators. Scholarly interest in Archilochus had begun already in the late fourth century bce, with Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus (see Chapter 3, sect. 2), and continued in the third century with monographs written by Apollonius Rhodius, Aristophanes of Byzantium, and Aristarchus.23 Lysanias of Cyrene, in all probability the teacher of Aristarchus, wrote a study ‘on the Iambic Poets’ ( æd NÆ ØH) in at least two books (Ath. 620c). I shall go back to ancient scholarship on iambos in Chapter 4, section 1.
there were no fewer than four such authorities, one for each of the major Hellenistic kingdoms. It follows from this that, when speaking of the authoritative Hellenistic text of Homer, we should abandon the usual practice of privileging Alexandria, which after all was only one Hellenistic capital among others, and envisage at least four such texts—Egyptian, Syrian, Macedonian, and Pergamene’ (p. 239). 23 Apollonius Rhodius wrote ‘On Archilochus’, æd æåغ åı (Ath. 451d); Aristophanes of Byzantium, a monograph ‘On the grievous message-stick’, æd B IåıÅ Œı ºÅ ıªªæÆ (Ath. 85e); and Aristarchus wrote a ‘Commentary on Archilochus’, æåغ å ØÆ YÆ Æ (Clem. Strom. 1.21.117). Cf. PfeiVer (1968), 144, 181, 208, 220.
32
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
In addition, the iambographers themselves become Wctionalized in epigrams from the Hellenistic period: Theocritus 21 Gow ¼ AP 7.664 (on Archilochus); Dioscorides, AP 7.351 (on Lycambes’ daughters); Meleager, AP 7.352 (on Lycambes’ daughters). There are also epitaphs to Hipponax: Theocritus 19 Gow ¼ AP 13.3; Philip of Thessalonike, GP 2861–6 ¼ AP 7.405; Leonidas of Tarentum, HE 2325–30 ¼ AP 7.408; Alcaeus of Messene, HE 76–81 ¼ AP 7.536.24 Although the canon of the three iambographers, along with evidence on generic aYliation and scholarship on iambic poets, creates a static impression, as if of a cinema still, Archilochus, Hipponax, and Semonides diVer in many ways.25 They were active over a span of more than a hundred years,26 in diVerent parts of Ionia: Archilochus in Paros and Thasos, Semonides in Samos and Amorgos, Hipponax in Ephesus and Clazomenai. Their extant poems diVer with regard to metre. Archilochus used a variety of metres: elegiac couplets, iambic trimeters, trochaic tetrameters, and several epodic combinations (see the list of epodic combinations in the Preface, n. 1). As far as we can tell, Archilochus did not use choliambics, while most of Hipponax’ extant fragments are written in pure and choliambic iambic trimeters. We have a few epodes (frr. 115–18W) and a parodic fragment in hexameters (fr. 128W) by Hipponax.27 By Semonides we only have iambic trimeters. The works of the three iambographers also diVer in subject matter. Non-elegiac poems by Archilochus show a variety of themes, including military and political narratives, animal fables, and poetry of moralizing, erotic, or plainly abusive content. Hipponax’ narratives seem to focus on a lower demi-monde; vulgarity and obscenities are frequent and crude. Semonides’ extant poems show
24 Rosen (2007b). 25 As opposed to the still-picture approach, Kantzios (2005) oVers an account of the internal development of the genre, looking into the subject matter in the trimeters of Archilochus, Hipponax, Semonides, and Solon. 26 In recent contributions to the dating of the iambographers, Lavelle (2002) suggests a somewhat earlier date for Archilochus than the one proposed by Jacoby (1941), namely, the middle of the 7th cent. bce, whereas Hubbard (1994) rejects the traditional date of Semonides, suggesting that he was a poet of the late 6th cent. bce, contemporary with Xenophanes and Heraclitus. 27 Other, ‘lyric’ metres appear in the dubia and spuria of both Archilochus and Hipponax.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
33
a tendency to reXection, and his criticism (e.g. of women in fr. 7W) is targeted at groups or types rather than at named individuals. Were all the poems of Archilochus (excluding his elegiacs), Hipponax, and Semonides that have come down to us considered as belonging to the same category at the time of composition? We have no indication that this was the case. Only the fact that their works were classiWed as belonging to the same genre by later scholars suggests that there was a traditional link among them. Our knowledge of the iambographers is a function of their status in the Hellenistic literary system. The process of transmission cannot be separated from that of reception and evaluation. Can we see beyond this Hellenistic ‘Wlter’?28 Hardly. But we should nevertheless try to Wnd more incidental references that link speciWc poets or works with iambos, for they will help us look at the iambic corpus, if possible, without canon-conditioning. Of course, the fact that an ancient author refers to a poet as an iambic poet (N ø ØÅ ; NÆ Ø ; NÆ ªæç) does not necessarily imply that he believed all that poet’s work to belong exclusively to the genre of iambos. Similarly, the fact that an ancient author quotes a fragment as coming from a book entitled YÆ Ø does not necessarily imply that all the poems included in that edition were considered iamboi, either by their editor and even less so at the time of composition. Nonetheless this is a valid procedure, provided that we tolerate a necessary degree of generalization, because it is consistent with the way in which the ancients operated in their treatment of literary genres and their archetypal poets. A few diYculties arise when we study ancient explicit references to authors who might have composed iamboi. When ancient sources mention the term YÆ it is not always clear whether they are using it in a metrical or a generic sense. Hence, when they introduce quotations with expressions such as K E N Ø this may sometimes be the result of inference from metre rather than direct testimony for an edition. Furthermore, after the classical period similar nomenclature was used for a range of poets, and not only Archilochus, Semonides, and Hipponax are referred to as iambic poets, but also third-century authors such as Callimachus, Phoenix of 28 Ford (2006a), 282; cf. Harvey (1955), for lyric genres.
34
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
Colophon,29 and Cercidas of Megalopolis.30 Athenaeus, a signiWcant witness for the ‘received iambos’, identiWes as ‘iambic poets’ (NÆ Ø ; N ø ØÅ æ Æ) not only Archilochus and Hipponax, but also Ananius, Moschina, Aischrion, and Phoenix, whereas his references to editions of iamboi include Semonides, Hipponax, Ananius, Solon, Hermippus, Asopodorus, Aeschrion, Phoenix, Cercidas, Hermias, Parmeno, Archelaus, and Promathidas. As this list shows, post-classical poetry plays a role in the perception of the genre.
2. THE ‘ RECEIV ED I A M B OS ’ The normal starting point for delineating the iambic corpus is the group of poems from Ionic-speaking areas that are not Å, that is to say, neither epic nor elegiac (the metres I refer to in the Preface as ‘iambic metres’). Almost all the poems and fragments in this group were collected by West in his Iambi et Elegi Graeci, which has become the standard edition since it was published in 1971–2 (it was revised in 1989/1992). Since 1999 they are conveniently grouped in Gerber’s Greek Iambic Poetry.31 In both West’s and Gerber’s editions, metrical criteria dominate, though they are subordinated to the criterion of what the most representative output of individual 29 In two of his six surviving choliambic fragments of moralizing content (frr. 2.17 and 6.1) Phoenix of Colophon (3rd cent. bce) uses the term YÆ for his own poems. Moreover, the collection of his poems might have been entitled YÆ Ø. This is suggested by Athenaeus, who introduces two quotations with the expression K E N Ø Kd çغŠ(359e) and æd ˝˝ˇY ºªø K fiH æ fiø H N ø (360a). In addition, Athenaeus calls Phoenix NÆ Ø at 8.59.11. 30 Cercidas of Megalopolis composed a collection entitled º Æ Ø (the restoration in the subscription ˚ æŒ Æ j ˚ıe j ½ º Æ Ø (P.Oxy. 1082 fr. 4 ll. 15–17 ¼ T 4 Lomiento) is supported by DL Vitae 6.76.10). These are invective poems written in Doric dialect and lyric metre, that is melos in form and similar to iambos in content. In addition, Athenaeus (554c–d) quotes a choliambic line as found K E N Ø (65 L. ¼ 14 Powell). The iamboi may have been a diVerent collection altogether, although Degani (1988a), 1026 n. 92 suggests that the choliambic line belongs to the Meliamboi. In the same passage Athenaeus (554c–d) goes on to mention Archelaus’ iamboi: ‰ ƒ æ E ŒÆd æåºÆ K E N Ø. Archelaus from Egypt was a 3rd-cent. bce author of paradoxes and epigrams. 31 Gerber (1999a). Also useful are the Italian and Spanish annotated translations by Aloni (1993) and Torre (2002).
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
35
poets is taken to be. So, by a necessary simpliWcation, we Wnd Archilochus’ elegies in the Loeb volume Greek Iambic Poetry, and Solon’s trimeters and tetrameters in the Loeb Greek Elegiac Poetry. Who, then, composed iamboi before the Hellenistic period, on the basis of explicit ancient references? Sappho is, perhaps, the most unexpected author with whom to begin our survey of candidates for the ‘received iambos’. The possibility, however, has to be considered, because according to the Suda, among other genres Sappho composed iamboi: ªæÆł b ºH ºıæØŒH 0 Ø º Æ Ł : ŒÆd æ Å ºBŒ æ yæ : ªæÆł b ŒÆd KتæÆ Æ ŒÆd Kº ª EÆ ŒÆd N ı ŒÆd fiø Æ ( 107) (‘She wrote nine books of lyric songs. She invented the plectrum. She also wrote epigrams, elegies, iamboi, and monodies’). Since there is no trace in the textual tradition of Sappho’s elegies and iamboi, how are we to understand the Suda’s entry? Appearing as it does after mention of the nine books of lyric songs and the plectrum, the reference to Sappho’s epigrams, elegies, iamboi, and monodies could derive from a diVerent source, something the Suda often signals with ŒÆ
ØÆ (according to some).32 This secondary reference to Sappho’s poetic works probably refers to less known writings or even doubtful ones that circulated separately from the nine books of the Alexandrian edition. Sappho is also credited with elegies by a second century ce papyrus containing biographies of poets and orators (P.Oxy. 1800 fr. 1 ¼ test. 252 Voigt): ªªæÆç b ı º½ Æ KÆ b ºıæØŒ; Kº ª ø ½ b ŒÆd ¼ººø? (‘She wrote [nine] books of lyric poetry, and one of elegiacs [and other . . . ?]’).33 Both the Suda’s and the papyrus references to Sappho’s elegiacs might have originated from the circulation of poems under her name, such as those
32 Cf. the Suda’s entry on Simmias, sigma 431: Ø Æ; ! Ø; ªæÆÆ ØŒ : ªæÆł ˆºÆ Ø º Æ ª0· ØÆ Æ ØçæÆ Ø º Æ 0 . q b e KÆæåB Ø: K b
fiH IØŒØfiH B æªF K ºÅ ŒÆd ÆP e ª g e Æ ø: Œ Ø b æªe N æ E º Ø; ØfiÆ; `NªØƺ ; æŒ Å: ªª b a ı#0 Å H $æø ؤ ŒH: ŒÆd ªæÆł ŒÆ ØÆ æH N ı; ŒÆd ¼ººÆ ØçæÆ; æåÆغª Æ H Æ ø. 33 One could restore Kº ª ø ½ b ŒÆd N ø? (‘one book of elegiacs [and iamboi]’), which would be compatible with the space in the line. Unfortunately the papyrus is damaged and without any other witness the text is irretrievable.
36
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
represented by the epigrams in elegiacs that the Palatine Anthology attributes to Sappho (6.269, 7.489, 7.505). What of iamboi, is there any support for them? One could assign a mistaken reference to the Suda’s compiler: elegies and iamboi are a usual pair, once elegies were mentioned, iamboi might have come to mind almost automatically.34 However, it may be that the reference to iamboi was generated by knowledge of something ‘similar to’ iamboi, either in metre or in content. As for metre, the iambic metres used by Sappho’s roughly contemporary Archilochus were not a medium available to Lesbian poets in the seventh century bce. On the contrary, both Sappho and Alcaeus employ ‘lyric’ metres for a range of contents, including invective.35 So, given that Sappho could not have written in a metre from the Ionian tradition,36 the Suda’s iamboi might have originated from the perception of iambic content or manner. Herodotus (2.135, cf. frr. 5 and 15b) knew of a poem in which Sappho attacked her brother Charaxus (see Chapter 7, sect. 2.i). Hellenistic scholars, too, noticed among Sappho’s poems something akin to iambos. Philodemus of Gadara (1st cent. bce) in the Wrst book of On Poems discusses a stream of literary criticism represented mostly by Epicureans, which dealt with issues of genre in an anti-Aristotelian way (see Chapter 4, sect. 5). Reporting the opinion of Pausimachus of Miletus (according to Janko) or Crates of Mallos (according to Asmis), that poets compose in a particular genre by convention ( ) and not by nature (çØ), Philodemus mentions Sappho along with Archilochus: ƒ ª½aæ NÆ Ød æƪ،a ØFØ; ŒÆd ƒ
æƪfiøØd ºØ NÆ ØŒ; ŒÆd Æç ØÆ NÆ ØŒH Ø E; ŒÆd æå ºå PŒ NÆ ØŒH (Philod. de Poem. 1, fr. 117) (‘For iambic poets compose tragic poems and tragic poets compose iambic, and Sappho composes some poems in an iambic manner and Archilochus not in an iambic manner’).37 We shall return to this passage in
34 M. L. West, personal communication. Similarly, the Suda makes reference to elegies and iamboi by Theocritus (s.v.). 35 Aloni (2006), 99. 36 The reference to Sappho’s iamboi could have originated in a metrical misunderstanding of the term ‘trimeters’. Hephaestion, speaking of acatalectic Ionic a maiore quotes a line from ‘the Aeolians’ ( Æ æ ¼Ł ƺƌe ØÆØ, Sappho vel Alcaeus 16.3 LP) as a trimeter (K E æØ æØ, Ench. 36.21). 37 Translated by Asmis (1992a), 162.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
37
Chapter 4, section 5. Now, Æç ØÆ NÆ ØŒH Ø E acknowledges the occasional presence in Sappho of contents perceived as typical of iambic poetry. To be sure, mockery and abuse appear occasionally in Sappho’s extant poetry,38 and it has been suggested that Lesbos oVered the conditions for iambic performance39 (or its Aeolian equivalent). However, Wnding ‘iambic motives’, such as mockery or abuse of named individuals in Sappho, as we do in Alcaeus,40 does not imply that their works were perceived as part of the iambic genre in antiquity. That some of them were perceived as belonging to the broad group of scoptic poetry is suggested by the verbs Œøfiø E and Œ Ø, which Maximus of Tyre (19.9s.) and Athenaeus (1.21bc) use to introduce Sappho 57. Sometimes adduced in support of a claim for Sappho’s iamboi is a letter that the emperor Julian sent to the Antiochian geographer Alypius in the second half of the fourth century ce (Ep. 10).41 In a comparison involving a learned allusion to Callimachus’ iamboi, Julian praises the way in which Alypius embellished his geographical work (probably a map or a collection of maps)42 with iamboi ‘not singing the Bupalean battle, according to the Cyrenaic poet, but such as beautiful Sappho wants to use in her hymns’ (¥ı ŒÆºc Æçg º ÆØ E oØ ±æ
Ø).43 By the term ‘hymns’ Julian is probably referring to Sappho’s lyric poetry in general. Thus the contrast between Hipponax’ iamboi and Sappho’s hymns is that between aggressive and moderate poetry. Rather than speaking of Sappho’s iamboi as a genre or of her invective poetry, Julian seems to praise Alypius’ iambic trimeters for being akin to lyric poetry in
38 O’Higgins (2003), 86–97. 39 Aloni (2001), 30; (2006), 97–9. 40 Andrisano (2001). 41 % ˙ Å b K ªåÆ I Ø B ı; c ª øªæÆç Æ ‹ I غÆ: P c ºÆ
Øa F ø K Å e Ææa F ØŒØ I ƺ: å Ø ªaæ ŒÆd a ØƪæÆ Æ H æ Ł º Ø; ŒÆd ŒÆ øÆ ÆP e æŁ d f N ı; P åÅ I Æ c ´ıº Ø ŒÆ a e ˚ıæÅÆE ØÅ ; Iºº ¥ı ŒÆºc Æçg º ÆØ E oØ ±æ
Ø; ŒÆd e b Hæ ØF K Ø; ›E Yø æ FÆØ K lØ ÆŁÆØ. (Jul. Ep. 10.403d) 42 LSJ s.v. ØƪæÆ. 43 oØ is better attested than Ø, see textual note in the edition of Bidez and Cumont (1924). Wright (1913), vol. 3, 18–19, has Ø in the Greek text, though his English translation is ‘songs’.
38
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
language or style. Therefore, this letter cannot be taken as evidence for Sappho’s iamboi as a genre, nor to her invective poetry. In sum, we have a single reference to Sappho’s iamboi by the Suda. If not a plain mistake, this testimony might have originated from those of Sappho’s poems that display abusive or scoptic content. No poems by Sappho were considered to belong to iambos as a literary genre, but the fact that some of her poems display certain themes and tones typical of iambic poetry was realized already in the second century bce. However, no textual evidence breaks the silence of female authors as far as composing iambic poetry is concerned. Nor has any work by Moschina, an Attic female composer of iamboi, active probably in the fourth century bce, survived.44 Fragments in trochaic tetrameters (frr. 32–4) and iambic trimeters (frr. 36–40)45 by Solon, the Wrst known Athenian poet (end of 7th to beginning of 6th cent. bce),46 have come down to us. Athenaeus (645f ¼ 38W) and Pollux (10.103 ¼ 39W), introduce some of the fragments in trimeters with the phrase K E N Ø. Was there an edition of Solon’s iamboi, or was this an inference from the metre? According to Diogenes Laertius (1.61), Solon composed iamboi and epodes, but none of the latter are extant. The content of most of the surviving fragments in trimeters and tetrameters is political, in some cases strongly apologetical.47 We Wnd no traces of animal fables or of erotics.48 Three of the fragments in iambic trimeters displaying gastronomic content (frr. 38–40) are thematically linked to the symposion.49 They may even come from a single poem, as Noussia suggests, and Solon’s description of gastronomic abundance may 44 ˙ ºÅ F ØÅ F ı Åæ; å Å b Łıª Åæ B
ØŒB N ø ØÅ æ Æ; K fi B KتæÆçfi Å Œººfi Å ƒ æ E . . . (Ath. 297a ¼ SH 559, p. 273). 45 Lardinois (2006) recently put forward the hypothesis that the iambic and trochaic poems transmitted under Solon’s name were composed by other Athenian poets who attributed them to him. 46 All poetic fragments in IEG 2 II, 139–65. Cf. Degani (1988a), 1022. 47 Irwin (2005a) examines the political language of Solon fr. 32W (pp. 237–44) (trochaic tetrameters) and fr. 36W (pp. 245–61) (iambic trimeters). Aristides (Or. 28.137, ii. 184.29 Keil ¼ Sol. 34.6–7W) makes a contrast between tetrameters and trimeters, based on metre. 48 Kantzios (2005), 34–74 studies the thematic features of the iambic trimeters of archaic poets. 49 Noussia (2001), 354, with further references.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
39
imply disapproval and criticism of the Athenian rich.50 By the time of Hipponax Solon was using iambic metres, along with trochaic tetrameters (as Archilochus did) mostly for serious purposes, in most cases with no thematic distinction between them and the elegiacs.51 We do not know whether Solon’s poems in iambic metres were termed iamboi at the time of composition, yet the possibility that they were edited under such a title in the Hellenistic period, suggested by the testimonies of Athenaeus, Pollux, and Diogenes Laertius, may be indicative of a serious and political iambos in the sixth century bce. However, in spite of his use of iambic metres, Solon is never referred to as an iambic poet, which suggests that in general his work was not considered dominantly iambic. Anacreon of Teos (6th cent. bce) is mostly known as a melic poet. Five or six books of songs were edited in Alexandria by Aristophanes of Byzantion and later by Aristarchus, and his name appears among the nine lyric poets (AP 9.184, cf. Dion. Thrax p. 21.18 V.). In addition, the Suda credits him also with elegies and iamboi,52 and iamb. 5W, composed in iambic trimeter þ hemiepes, the metre of some epodes by Archilochus and Hipponax (Archil. 182W; Hippon. 115–17W),53 is cited by EM (523, l. 10) with the introductory ‰ Ææa ÆŒæ Ø K N fiø. Assuming that N fiø here is not an inference, the combined testimonies of the EM and the Suda support a hypothesis for the perception of some of Anacreon’s poems as iamboi, or for the existence of a section of an edition of Anacreon’s poems entitled ‘iamboi’, which included epodes. The metre of a few other fragments supports this claim: we have tetrameters (iamb. 2– 4W), possibly trimeters (iamb. 1W),54 and epodes (iamb. 5–7W). In addition, we Wnd among Anacreon’s poems a few instances of 50 Noussia (2001), 357–9. 51 Kantzios (2005), 25. Cf. Degani (1988a), 1022. 52 ªæÆł Kº ª EÆ ŒÆd N ı Ø Æ ØƺŒ fiø . . . ŒÆd ıªæÆł Ææ Ø ºÅ ŒÆd N ı ŒÆd a ŒÆº Æ ÆŒæ ØÆ. (Suid s.v. ÆŒæø). The relevant elegiac and iambic fragments are collected in IEG 2 II, 30–4. Elegiac fragments are edited in Campbell (1988), vol. 2, 146–9. Anacreon’s iambic fragments do not appear in Gerber (1999a). Cf. Degani (1988a), 1021. 53 The authorship of Hippon. 115–17W (the ‘Strasburg papyrus’) is disputed. 54 The two iambic trimeters attributed to Anacreon by Hephaestion (Ench. 5.2 ¼ iamb. 1W) are also quoted by Plutarch (de Comm. Not. 20 p. 1068b) without naming the author.
40
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
invective against named individuals, though in lyric metre (frr. 346, 372, 388 PMG). The Suda and the EM suggest that part of Anacreon’s poetic output was considered iambic in ancient scholarship. If the surviving fragments are representative of the proportions in which Anacreon devoted himself to respective genres, it may be correct to say that Anacreon belongs to the ‘received iambos’ by virtue of a part of his work that was considered less typical of him. Ananius is one of the few archaic Greek poets, along with Archilochus, Semonides, Hipponax, and Susarion, that ancient sources (Athenaeus and Tzetzes) explicitly refer to as an iambic poet (NÆ Ø ).55 Ananius, whose place of origin is unknown, was probably active during the sixth century bce, shortly after Hipponax or contemporarily with him.56 The Sicylian Epicharmus (early 5th cent. bce) mentions Ananius in The Marriage of Hebe (fr. 51 Austin ¼ 58 Keibel, see Chapter 7, sect. 4). A Wrst-century bce commentary on the Iliad mentions his name and oVers a quotation.57 Ten centuries later Johannes Tzetzes (ad Exeg. Il., p. 150, 18–20 H) includes Ananius instead of Semonides in the canon of iambographers.58 We owe most quotations of Ananius’ poems (frr. 2–5W) to Athenaeus.59 Of the Wve fragments that have come down to us, four are written in iambic trimeters (frr. 1–4W), some pure (fr. 1W), some scazon and some ischiorrhogic (fr. 2W and fr. 3.2–3W). The longest fragment (fr. 5W) is written in trochaic tetrameters, some of them scazon. Indeed, Wve long syllables at the end of the trimeter (ischiorrhogic) are considered the mark of Ananius.60 Subject matter in the extant fragments is moralizing (frr. 2 and 3W), gastronomic (frr. 4, 5W), and there is a mock prayer in pure iambic trimeters (fr. 1W). More than once the attribution of a fragment to Ananius is a matter of doubt for ancient authors, who often confused him with Hipponax. 55 Ath. 78f; Tzetzes in Lyc. ii.18 Scheer. Athenaeus (78f) introduces fr. 3W with the phrase ŒÆd Ø › NÆ Øe çÅ. 56 Fragments in IEG 2 II, 34–6. Cf. Gerhard (1914), 658; Degani (1988a), 1020–1; Bowie, DNP s.v. Ananius does not appear in OCD 3. 57 Schol. Hom. Il. 7.76 (P.Oxy. 1087 col. ii ll. 56–7) ¼ Anan. 6W. 58 Degani (1988a), 1020. Tzetzes probably knew Hipponax’ poetry from an edition (cf. references to the edition of Hipponax’ poems at the beginning of this chapter). If this edition included Ananius as well, this could explain his choice of Ananius instead of Semonides, with whose poems he was probably not familiar. 59 Bowie (2000), 132. 60 Tractatus Harleianus p. 16 Studemund.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
41
As we shall see in Chapter 7, section 2.ii, fr. 1W is attributed to Hipponax by Aristophanes (Ran. 661) but the scholiast says the line belongs to Ananius. Fr. 2W is introduced by Athenaeus as Ø j HÆ K E N Ø (625c). Fr. 3W, attributed to Ananius by Athenaeus (78f), is quoted as Hipponax’ by Stobaeus (4.33.12). A hypothesis put forward by Welcker (1817), that Ananius’ poems circulated in a volume together with those of Hipponax, obtained scholarly consensus.61 This would explain both the mistaken attributions and the ‘canonization’ of Ananius by Tzetzes. Thus in the ‘received iambos’ Ananius is a minor archaic poet, belonging to the periphery of the canon. Although Aristoxenus of Selinus (6th cent. bce)62 is usually considered an author of Dorian farces similar to those later composed by Epicharmus,63 in a fragment from Epicharmus’ Logos and Logina (fr. 77) a reference to ‘the iamboi introduced by Aristoxenus’ gives him a place in the history of early iambos.64 A single surviving anapaestic tetrameter, quoted by Hephaestion, is sometimes considered representative of Aristoxenus’ iamboi. The interpretation of Epicharmus fr. 77 has to deal with some major questions: were there diVerent regional traditions of iamboi? Could iambos as a genre have passed from Ionian into Dorian areas?65 If so, did it diVer from the Ionian iambos, in dialect or any other respect? In Chapter 7, section 4, I discuss Epicharmus’ fragment, which has been taken as evidence for a Dorian (anapaestic) tradition of iambos in Southern Italy. I conclude, with Kaibel and Lennartz, that we cannot tell whether the iamboi mentioned by Epicharmus refer to a poetic genre. It is possible that Epicharmus is making a claim about the introduction of iamboi—probably to be taken in a rhythmical sense—into Sicilian plays. At any rate, whatever explicit evidence there is does not allow us to include Aristoxenus in the ‘received iambos’.
61 Welcker (1817), 109; West, IEG 2 II, 34; Degani (1984), 27. Degani suggests that verses from other choliambic poets were also included in one volume. 62 On the date of Aristoxenus see Ch. 7, sect. 4. 63 PCG I, p. 6. 64 Fragment in IEG 2 II, 45–6. West (1971), 310 n. 4: ‘for Epicharmus iamboi is a genre that may include anapaests’. Cf. West (1974), 34–5; Degani (1988a), 1005; Brown (1997), 37. 65 According to West (1974), 35 Aristoxenus’ anapaests may have a Peloponnesian origin, Megara and its colony Selinus providing the link.
42
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
According to Diogenes Laertius, Xenophanes of Colophon (c.565–c.470 bce)66 wrote iamboi: ªªæÆç b K Ø ŒÆd Kº ª Æ ŒÆd N ı ŒÆŁ ˙ Ø ı ŒÆd ˇæı; KØŒ ø ÆP H a æd Ł H NæÅÆ (9.18) (‘He wrote in hexameters, and also elegies and iamboi against Hesiod and Homer, denigrating their sayings about the gods’). The poetic composition in which Xenophanes censures Hesiod and Homer was known from the Wrst century bce as silloi.67 This was a satirical work against poets and philosophers written in hexameters (perhaps interspersed with iambic trimeters).68 Timon of Phlius (3rd cent. bce)69 composed silloi in hexameters, in which he claims Xenophanes as a model. It is not clear whether silloi was the original appellation of Xenophanes’ composition, or whether it was so called by later grammarians due to its similarity to Timon’s silloi. Timon is credited with iamboi only once, precisely by Diogenes (9.110). Since by Diogenes’ time both Xenophanes and Timon were known as authors of silloi, it seems that in both cases Diogenes confused silloi and iamboi. The names must have been perceived as close in meaning. At any rate, ancient lexicographers and scholars deWned iambos and sillos using similar terms, such as H; ŒÆŒºª Æ; åº ıÆ , and ºØæ Æ.70 It is therefore possible that Diogenes used the term iamboi with reference to Xenophanes’ and Timon’s silloi broadly, as scoptic poetry.71 Strictly speaking, then, Xenophanes does not belong to the corpus of the ‘received iambos’. 66 Discussion: Degani (1988a), 1021–2. 67 P.Oxy. 1087.41 (Schol. Hom. on Il. 7): . . . e % ¯ æıjŒ Ææa ˛ ½ç Ø K K ººø; Strabo 14, p. 643: › çıØŒe › f ººı ØÆ Øa ØÅ ø; cf. Procl. on Hesiod. Op. 284; Schol. ABTon Il. 2.212; Schol. Ar. Equ. 408 (with quotation). On silloi see Wachsmuth (1855); Di Marco (1989). Athenaeus (54e) credits Xenophanes with parodies (K Ææfiø ÆØ). 68 Cf. fr. 14DK, with Untersteiner (1955), pp. cxxvi–cxxvii, n. 32 (on the combination of hexameter and iambic trimeter). Bossi (1986), 39–43, oVered the hypothesis that Xenophanes composed the Margites (see Ch. 3, sect. 6). Cf. Degani (1988a), 1021. 69 Untersteiner (1955), p. ccxli; Di Marco (1989), 17–18, with further references. 70 Hsch. s.v. غº : H; ŒÆŒºª Æ; ŒÆd åº ıÆ ; Phot. Bibl. 239.321a28–30: › b ºº ºØæ Æ ŒÆd ØÆıæf ç Øø IŁæø å Ø; Schol. Dion. Thrax p. 451.23 (Hilgard): ºº K d ÅÆ ºØæ Æ ŒÆ Ø æØå. Cf. Suid. s.v.; Phryn. Bekk. p. 36.20. 71 Similarly, Athenaeus’ reference to Xenophanes’ parodies (54e) might also be to the silloi.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
43
Diogenes Laertius also mentions ‘another Xenophanes’: ªª b ŒÆd ¼ºº ˛ çÅ; ¸ Ø; ØÅ c N ø (9.20) (‘There was also another Xenophanes, a Lesbian, a poet of iamboi’). This Xenophanes of Lesbos is not mentioned elsewhere. Ancient scholars occasionally resorted to postulating ‘another X’ (as in the case of Euenus72 and Sappho) in order to deal with diYculties in poets’ vitae. Diogenes’ source may have resorted to this ‘other Xenophanes’ in order to reconcile what was perceived as contradictory biographical data, and thus credit Xenophanes of Colophon with silloi, and Xenophanes of Lesbos with the iamboi that someone had wrongly attributed to the former. The scholiast to Dionysios Thrax mentions Susarion as the protos heuretes of iamboi:73 æŁÅ b æƪfiø Æ e ¨Ø Ø ŁÅÆ ı; b Œøfiø Æ e ¯ Øåæı K ØŒ º fi Æ; ŒÆd › YÆ e ıÆæ ø (Schol. Dion. Thr. p. 475.20 Hilgard) (‘Tragedy was invented by an Athenian, Thespis, comedy by Epicharmus in Sicily, and iambos by Susarion’). Most of our sources, however, link Susarion consistently with comedy, most speciWcally with either Attic or Doric claims for its origins. The Marmor Parium (264 bce, on the period 581–560 bce), which oVers the earliest testimony on Susarion’s life,74 states that he came from the demos of Icaria in Attica and that he invented Comedy.75 The only surviving fragment (quoted by Tzetzes and Stobaeus) consists of Wve iambic trimeters against women written in Attic. According to this fragment, Susarion was from Tripodiscus in Megara.76 Before quoting the fragment Tzetzes 72 See note on the identiWcation of Euenus in Ch. 11, sect. 4. 73 Cf. Clemens of Alexandria (Strom I. 79.I ¼ PCG VII test. 2) where Archilochus is said to have invented (K Å ) iambos, Hipponax the limping iambos, Thespis tragedy, and Susarion comedy. 74 Fragments in PCG VII pp. 661–5; IEG2 II, 167–8. Discussion: Degani (1988a), 1022: ‘che un giambografo sia stato preso per un comediografo, non stupisce’. But OCD3 s.v. ‘Susarion’ suggests that he may be a Wctitious person. Rusten (2006), 42–4, 59–60 discusses the problematic evidence for Susarion as the inventor of comedy. 75 Marm. Par. 239 A 39 Jac (inter a. 582/1 et 561/0) ¼ PCG VII test. 1. For Susarion as the heuretes of Comedy PCG VII test. 2–4 and 6–9. Diomedes mentions Susarion along with Mullus and Magnes as poetae primi comici (Diom. GL I p. 488, l. 24). 76 Tzetzes. Prol. in Ar. (p. 26.78 Koster ¼ PCG VII test. 8 and 10): B s Œøfiø Æ B ŒÆºıÅ æ Å æH ŒÆd æ c ªª › ªÆæ f ıÆæ ø › $æØ ŒØ.
44
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
says that Susarion was the inventor of comedy. For Tzetzes the fragment shows that early comedy included ŒHÆ. The authenticity of the quotation has been questioned by Pickard-Cambridge,77 Dover,78 and Nesselrath,79 whereas West and Degani argue that the fragment comes from an iambos and that Susarion was a minor iambographer.80 On the sole testimony of the scholiast to Dionysios Thrax, along with the impression that the fragment belongs to an independent poem similar to Semonides 7 in the misogynistic treatment of women, I include Susarion in the ‘received iambos’, although I’m aware that the evidence is weak, and that he was better known for comedy. The Margites, a mock-heroic poem often attributed to Homer, was linked to iambos in Aristotle’s history of poetry (Poetics ch. 4, see Chapter 3, sect. 6). Indeed, Aristotle mentions the Margites as an example of the pre-Homeric stage of psogos as forerunner of comedy. In Chapter 3, section 6 I argue that rather than evidence for the Margites being an instance of iambos, Aristotle’s reference should be taken as a polemical hypothesis intended to overshadow the role of iambic poets in the development of the humorous branch of poetry. The Margites, therefore, should not be included in the ‘received iambos’. DiVerent is the case of Eucleides of Athens, of whom we hear also through Aristotle. In chapter 22 of the Poetics Aristotle uses the verb NÆ Ø E to introduce a two-line quotation by a certain Eucleides: . . . x ¯PŒº Å › IæåÆE; ‰ Þfi Ø k Ø E Y Ø Ø KŒ Ø Kç › º ÆØ; NÆ ØÆ K ÆP fi B fi B º Ø ¯ ØåæÅ r ÆæÆŁø Æ Ç Æ; ŒÆd PŒ y i ª æ y e KŒ ı Kºº æ:
e b s çÆ ŁÆ ø åæ fiø fiH æ fiø ª ºE: (Arist. Po. 1458b 3–12)
77 DTC 2, 280–4. 78 OCD3 s.v. ‘Susarion’. 79 DNP s.v. ‘Susarion’. 80 West (1974), 183–4; Degani (1988a), 1022; similarly Gerber (1999a), 9.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
45
. . . like Eucleides the elder, who, supposing it easy to write poetry if one is allowed to lengthen words at whim, lampooned (iambopoiesas) Homer in his very diction: ‘I saw Epichares walking to Marathon’ and ‘not mixing his hellebore.’ Now, the blatant use of such a manner is ridiculous.81
We have no information about Eucleides’ life and work, except for Aristotle’s epithet › IæåÆE, ‘old Eucleides’, suggesting that Eucleides might have been active in the Wfth or sixth centuries bce. Aristotle quotes two spondaic hexameters to exemplify the abuse of poetic licence regarding the length of syllables. Is Aristotle implying that the two hexameters belong to a poem he would term iambos? The lines have been taken as belonging to comedy (Rostagni)82, parody (Degani, Austin),83 and iambos (Bergk, Lennartz).84 The choice of generic aYliation depends on the choice between a literal interpretation of the introductory verb NÆ Ø E (‘as Eucleides does, while composing iamboi, in the following phrase’) and a Wgurative one (‘as Eucleides does, while he makes a parody in this style’). Gudeman, for example, takes NÆ ØÆ as a stylistic variation of ØÆŒøfiøF and in the sense of NÆ Ç Ø.85 Similarly, West suggests that NÆ ØÆ here means ‘illudens’, and although he includes Eucleides in his IEG, he doubts whether he is a comic or an iambic poet. The main diYculty with a Wgurative reading is that we have no other instance of NÆ Ø E to support the sense of ‘to parody’ or ‘satirize’,86 and Aristotle elsewhere used NÆ Ç Ø in the sense of ‘abuse, mock’. Moreover, compounds formed of the name of a poem, song, or genre followed by -Ø E (such as Kº ª ØØ E; KØ E; æƪfiøØ E; ØŁıæÆ Ø E; Ø E) are generally not used Wguratively, whereas verbs such as æƪfiø E; E, and
81 Translated by Halliwell (1995), 111–13. 82 Rostagni (1927), 134. 83 Degani (1988a), 1006, n. 6; PCG V, 632. Contra: Wilamowitz-MoellendorV (1921), 68 n. 4; Lennartz (2000a), 237–8. 84 Lennartz (2000a), 237–8. 85 Gudeman (1934), 377. 86 LSJ s.v.: NÆ Øø, parody; LSJ Suppl. s.v. replaces ‘parody’ with ‘satirize’.
46
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
Œøfiø E are.87 It seems preferable, therefore, to take NÆ Ø E literally, ‘to compose iamboi’. This, however, raises the question of whether the ancients would label iamboi poems composed in hexameters. One fragment by Hipponax written in hexameters (fr. 128W) gives some support to this possibility, in the particular case of parody of epic diction. However, Hipponax 128W has a claim to belong to the genre of parody. Indeed, Polemon of Ilion (2nd cent. bce) quotes it in order to make the point that Hipponax was the heuretes of the genre of Parodia ( æ c b s F ªı ÆŒ Æ çÆ e NÆ Ø : ºª Ø ªaæ y K E (Æ æØ, ap. Ath. 698b). This seems to be an instance of a ‘pseudo-protos heuretes’, to which ancient scholars resort in order to show that elements typical of certain genres can be traced back to early authors. We Wnd an example of ‘pseudo-protos heuretes’ in the scholia ABT to Il. 2.212. The scholiast says that Homer, instead of Xenophanes, was the Wrst to compose silloi, in which he (i.e. Homer) mocks Thersites, and makes Thersites mock the chiefs (XÅ b P ˛ ç Ø; Iºº ˇæøØ æ øØ ººØ Å ÆØ; K x ÆP e ¨ æ ŠغºÆ Ø ŒÆd › ¨ æ Å f Iæ ı). Similarly, Polemon’s statement probably means that Hipponax was a forerunner of Parodia in that he used elements that later became typical of Parodia as a genre.88 It may well be that both Hipponax fr. 128W and Eucleides’ lines did not belong to independent hexametrical poems but were embedded in some other metrical context. It is possible that occasionally the ancients termed iamboi poems that included dactylic hexameters for the speciWc purpose of parody.89 In sum, evidence for both Hipponax fr. 128W and Eucleides’ lines as belonging to the ‘received iambos’ cannot be completely ruled out but is nevertheless inconclusive, as
87 LSJ s.vv. 88 Degani (1983), 23–4. The genre of parody was mainly ‘epos-parody’ and it was a category of competition in the musical contests of several Greek cities. The earliest testimony for such contests comes from Eretria (IG IX.189, about 340 bce), where the parodoi receive the smallest prize (Degani (1983), 20–2). 89 West (1974), 40 classes Hipponax 128W as an iambos. See Degani (1983), 22 V. and (1984), 187–205 for a survey of various interpretations of the fragment. Hipponax 128W parodies the diction of traditional epic invocations to the Muse, not found in the poems of Archilochus, Semonides, and Hipponax that are iambic in metre (Finkelberg (1998), 161; Rotstein (2000), 288; cf. Correˆa (2008)).
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
47
the sources themselves display ambivalence between iambos and parody as a literary genre.90 Timocreon of Rhodes (Wrst half of the 5th cent. bce) is known to us as a lyric poet.91 His longest and best known poem lampoons Themistocles in dactylo-epitrites and in the dialect of choral lyric poetry (fr. 727 of about 478 bce, transmitted by Plutarch, Them. 21.1–4).92 Wilamowitz attributed an iambic trimeter to Timocreon (Timocreon 7W ¼Anacreon 426 PMG þ Timocreon 733 PMG) but the line is proverbial and is credited to Anacreon by Zenobius. The Suda describes Timocreon as a poet of Old Comedy, of which we have no trace, and refers to the poem against Themistocles as invective in lyric metre (ł ª Ø K ºF Ø ØÆ , T 624). In the scholia to Aelius Aristides we Wnd a reference to Timocreon’s iamboi: ƒ b ºıæØŒe ØÅ c F çÆd; ª ªæÆç
Æ N ı ØÆ ºa å Æ (‘some say he was a lyric poet who wrote iamboi that display invective’).93 Aelius Aristides speaks at some length about Archilochus and the genre of poetry he practised, the iamboi (æå ºå; n e ø å ŒÆd ıå æ æ r B Ø ø å Øæ Ç ; f N ı, Or. 46.293), before making a brief reference to Timocreon. Aelius mentions Boupalos and emphasizes Archilochus’ invective, using terms such as ºÆçÅ Æ; ØÆ æ Ø; ŒÆŒH ºª Ø. The information about Archilochus probably activated the ‘iambic script’ in the commentator’s mind, and 90 If the lines that Aristotle quotes belong to an iambos, what type of poem would that be? Lennartz has pointed out a parallel for the trivial ‘I saw Epichares when he was going to Marathon’ in Hermippus fr. 4.1W: N e ˚ıºØŒæø Æ Çø ºÅ IçØŒ Å. Thus Eucleides’ iambos possibly had to do with the narration of an event in the Wrst person, including perhaps dialogue with a second character. This narration itself may be a parody of another poet’s style, possibly through a metaprosodic joke (i.e. through spondaic hexameters). 91 Fragments in PMG pp. 375–8; Campbell (1988), vol. IV, 89–97. 92 On Timocreon’s invective see Bowra (1934), who suggests it is a skolion; Robertson (1980); Scodel (1983), on the generic interplay between praise and blame; see also Vox (1984); Stehle (1994). 93 The scholia suggest a controversy about the identity of Timocreon: ƒ b ºıæØŒe ØÅ c F çÆd; ª ªæÆç
Æ N ı ØÆ ºa å Æ: ƒ b ‹ Ø ŒÆŒe q ŒÆd ŒÆ ƪøŁ d P ŁÅÆ ø æØfi Ø; ºªø ‰ PŒ Kb ØŒÆØ ŒÆŒH; Iººa ŒÆd — æØŒºÆ (Schol. Oxon. ad Ael. Arist. Or. 3.612 (i. 496 Behr) ¼ Or. 46.294 (ii. 380 Dindorf)). The second option, however, is not a real possibility because Timocreon was active earlier than 430 bce, when Pericles was tried and Wned.
48
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
he accordingly based his remarks about Timocreon on the text commented upon and on previous background knowledge about Archilochus’ poems. Rather than referring to iambos as a literary genre, the term iamboi in this case stands for invective. Thus Timocreon of Rhodes does not belong to the ‘received iambos’. Hermippus of Athens was active as a poet of comedy in the second half of the Wfth century bce. More than 90 fragments of his comedies survive (PCG vol. 5, pp. 561–604), as well as a few fragments in iambic trimeters and trochaic tetrameters.94 Athenaeus refers to both metrical types by the generic term iamboi. Indeed, he employs K N Ø to introduce a citation of an iambic trimeter at 76c ( ¼ Hermipp. 2W, and again at Ath. 700d) and K E N Ø to cite two trochaic tetrameters at 461e ( ¼ Hermipp. 4W, and again at 667d). Given that Athenaeus uses the generic term iambos for tetrameters, we can be fairly conWdent that he did not make an inference from metre, and thus that he probably knew an edition of iamboi containing both iambic trimeters and trochaic tetrameters. Things are diVerent with the scholia to Aristophanes, which refer to Hermippus’ poems using metrical terms, such as K fiH ½æ fiø N fiø H æØ æø (Schol. Ar. Pl. 701 ¼ Hermipp. 1W), K E æØ æØ (Schol. Ar. Av. 1150 ¼ Hermipp. 3W), K E æÆ æØ (Schol. Ar. Vesp. 1169 ¼ Hermipp. 5W) and ¯ æ ı æÆ æØ (Schol. Ar. Av. 304 ¼ Hermipp. 6W). Are Athenaeus and the scholia speaking about a similar edition of Hermippus’ poems, to which Athenaeus refers with the generic term iamboi while the scholiast uses a more technical term? Or did Hermippus’ poems circulate in two diVerent editions, one organized by metre, the other making no distinction between trimeters and tetrameters? I Wnd the latter option more probable, and as I suggested for Archilochus’ poems, I believe Athenaeus’ omission of a reference to a section of an edition indicates that Hermippus’ poems circulated in two diVerent forms. For the purpose of establishing the ‘received iambos’, we have enough evidence to include Hermippus, although he was mainly active in the genre of comedy.
94 He was an author of parody too, Degani (1988a), 1022.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
49
Of Diphilus we do not know date or place of origin. Only two choliambic trimeters survive.95 The scholiast to Pindar (Ol. 10.83b) quotes the fragment saying that B ØÆ F ،ŌÆØ –æÆ Ø; u çÅØ ˜ çغ › c ¨ÅÅ Æ ØÆ ØØ N fiø o ø (‘A certain Semos won the chariot race, as Diphilus, who composed the Theseis, says in a certain iambos as follows’). The word N fiø has also been transmitted as NÆ fiø,96 but the metrical term ‘iambic’ would hardly introduce a quotation in two lines, whereas the generic term ‘iambos’ can do so. It is often believed that the quotation comes from the Theseis and therefore, that the Theseis was a mock-heroic poem.97 However, the scholiast may simply be referring to a composition by which Diphilus was known in order to better identify the author, while the quotation may come from a lesser known iambos. Diphilus is not only little attested, but iamboi may have been a minor part of his poetic output. Scythinus of Teos, dated to the Wfth or fourth centuries bce, was known to Stephanus of Byzantion (Lexicon pp. 619 f. Meineke) as an iambic poet (› N ø ØÅ ), famous enough to be listed with Protagoras as a native of Teos. Diogenes Laertius also knows Scythinus as an iambic poet. He cites Hieronymus of Byzantion (3rd cent. bce), who says that Scythinus composed a metrical version of Heraclitus’ æd ç ø (DL 9.16 ¼ fr. 46 Wehrli). Scythinus’ output as iambic poet is probably to be distinguished from the æd ç ø. Of this work Stobaeus transmits a prose version (1.8.43), a passage deriving from tetrameters according to Wilamowitz, which West attempted to reconstruct (Scythinus 2W). Only one poetic fragment by Scythinus survives, quoted by Plutarch (de Pyth. Orac. 16 p. 402a), consisting of two catalectic trochaic tetrameters. Scythinus belongs to the ‘received iambos’ as a minor classical iambic poet. Aeschrion—a suitable ‘speaking name’ for an iambic poet. Athenaeus refers to Aeschrion of Samos as NÆ Ø (335c–d) and quotes 9 choliambic lines, an epitaph for Philaenis of Samos in which she claims that the sexual treatise attributed to her was a forgery by Polycrates of Athens. If the epigram can be taken at all 95 Fragments in IEG 2 II, 61–2. 96 N fiø BG, NÆ fiø Q. 97 West (IEG 2 II, 61); Degani (1988a), 1023 n. 79.
50
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
seriously and Aeschrion was contemporary or rather a bit later than Polycrates, he could have been active towards the end of the fourth century bce.98 Elsewhere Athenaeus oVers a piece of information as coming from `Nåæ ø › Ø ØØ H N ø (Ath. 296f). The lexicographer Harpocration (2nd cent. bce) mentions an edition of iamboi by a certain Aeschines of Sardis,99 whose date in uncertain: `Nå Å b › ÆæØÆe K E N Ø ŒÆd a O Æ Æ ÆP H Iƪæç Ø; ˚ıº ŒÆd % ` ºÆ (Lex. 175 s.v. ˚æŒøł) (‘Aeschines of Sardis in his iamboi also registers their names, Kandoulos and Atlantos’). Since nothing is known about Aeschines of Sardis, De Maussac and Lobeck emended the text, reading `Nåæ ø b › Ø instead of `Nå Å b › ÆæØÆ . It is, however, unclear whether the two are one or two separate poets. In addition, Tzetzes (Chiliades 198.398–400) mentions an Aeschrion of Mytilene, who wrote epic poems and iamboi, but he is probably confusing Aeschrion of Samos with the pupil of Aristotle who, according to the Suda (alpha 354), was an epic poet. Based on Athenaeus’ testimony, there is a place for Aeschrion of Samos in the ‘received iambos’ as a minor classical iambic poet. Euenus of Paros is sometimes considered an iambic poet, based on Plato’s reference to his parapsogoi (Phdr. 267a), and on Hermias of Alexandria’s (5th cent. ce) comments on Plato’s passage, in which Hermias quotes a faulty hemiepes by Euenus with the introductory n ŒÆd e YÆ F r . I discuss the evidence in Chapter 11, section 4, where I argue that parapsogoi in Plato’s text is a parodic neologism, and (with Lennartz) that iambos in Hermias’ text is the result of textual corruption. Euenus of Paros is therefore out of the ‘received iambos’. The Suda mentions two books of trimeters by a certain Simonides of Carystos or Eretria. This Simonides is otherwise unknown, and all the information we have comes from the Suda: ‘Simonides, of Carystos or Eretria, an epic poet (epopoios): The Gathering of the Achaians at Aulis; Trimeters in two books; On Iphigenia’100 98 Fragments of Aeschrion in SH. Frr. 4, 5, 6 (þ7–10?) are iambic in metre. Discussion in Gow and Page (1968), vol. 1, 3–5. 99 IEG 2 II, 28. 100 Translated by Bowie (forthcoming a). I am grateful to Ewen Bowie for calling my attention to the Suda’s entry on Simonides.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
51
(Øø Å; ˚Ææ Ø j ¯ æ æØ ; KØ : c N `Pº Æ 0 0 H åÆØH; $æØ æø Ø º Æ ; — æd çت Æ Æ , sigma 444). A Hellenistic book of Archilochus entitled Trimeters is known to us, as evidenced by Eustathius and Harpocration,101 so Simonides’ two books may well be, as Bowie suggests, a collection of iamboi.102 A versatile poet and scholar, or perhaps an itinerant rhapsode and sophist, Simonides was active in several genres: epic (The Gathering), iamboi (later edited in two books), prose (On Iphigenia), and perhaps, as Bowie suggests, elegy too.103 Possibly contemporary of Euenus of Paros, Simonides may have been active towards the end of the Wfth century bce.104 Although Simonides of Carystos or Eretria remains a possible candidate to the ‘received iambos’ as a minor, not predominantly iambic poet, the lack of further evidence prevents us from including him in the corpus. A few further authors remain out of the ‘received iambos’. According to Athenaeus, Asopodorus of Phlius composed iamboi in prose (K
E ŒÆ ƺªÅ N Ø, Ath. 445b).105 The hybrid nature of the work suggests that Asopodorus was active in the third century bce, and he is therefore beyond the scope of this work. A reference to Pherecrates, the Wfth-century comic poet, by Aristophanes of Byzantion (fr. 24.7), using the expression K N fiø to introduce an iambic trimeter is most probably a metrical one. Finally, some iambic trimeters and trochaic tetrameters by obscure poets have come down to us with no generic aYliation. Diogenes Laertius (1.84) cites a tetrameter by Demodocus of Leros (fr. 6W), who might have been active in the sixth century bce.106 Two tetrameters by Simonides of Ceos are transmitted by the Anthologia Palatina (AP 13.30 ¼ fr. 92W), and two versions of a riddle in iambic trimeters by a certain Panarces of unknown date and homeland have
101 æå ºå . . . K E æØ æØ (Eust. in Hom. p. 518.27 ¼ 18W); æå ºå b æØ æØ (Harpocr. s.v. ƺ ŒØ ¼ 36W). 102 Bowie (forthcoming a) and personal communication. 103 Bowie (forthcoming a). 104 Bowie (forthcoming a). 105 Brown (1997), 15. 106 Demodocus’ fragments are collected in IEG 2 II, 56–8. Of four epigrams transmitted by the Anthologia Palatina (11.235–8) all but one (11.235) are considered spurious by West.
52
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
survived. A few fragments in the iambic metres have come down to us with no authorial identiWcation. They are gathered as ‘adespota iambica’.107 The question of which of these fragments belong to poems that were considered iamboi at the time of composition or by later audiences remains open, posing a test on our understanding of the ancient conceptualization of the genre.
i. The ‘received iambos’: three explanations We began this survey with one purpose in mind: to map out the ‘received iambos’, that is to say, the corpus of iambic poets as deWned by ancient explicit testimonies. In order to accomplish that goal we had to resort to post-classical evidence. The result is a conWguration of poets deriving from the literary conceptualization of the genre. The picture is, thus, several centuries delayed. This is so not only because of lack of evidence. Iambos is, as I said at the beginning of this chapter, a ‘soft genre’, one that received its strongest social and cultural reinforcement from the moment that editions of poetry became available. In addition to ancient editions, two more factors had an impact on the way the ancients made category judgements: scholarly works devoted mainly to the three canonic iambographers and the Hellenistic revivals. Callimachus and Herondas explicitly connect Hipponax and iambos in their programmatic statements (Call. Iamb 1.191.3 and 21; Herod. 8.77), and no matter how complex the play between generic conventions and re-elaboration, Callimachus’ Iamboi are our earliest testimony for the perception of epodes as belonging to the genre of iamboi. Modern editions, the result of philological and papyrological research along with historical interpretation, also play a role in shaping our concepts of ancient literary genres. In the coming decades we will most probably realize that the digital tools available on-line have an impact on perceptions of ancient generic categories. For example, the web version of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae tags with the generic epithet ‘Iamb.’ the following authors: Archilochus
107 IEG 2 II, 16–28.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
53
(Eleg., Iamb.), Semonides (Eleg., Iamb.), Hipponax, Ananius, Asopodorus, Simylus, Cercidas, Parmeno, Phoenix, Sotades, Hermias, Choliambica Adespota (ALG), Anacreontea, Boiscus, Iambica Adespota (IEG), Iambica Adespota (ALG), Diphilus (Epic., Iamb.), and Sotadea. A search for pre-Hellenistic iambic poets retrieves: Archilochus, Semonides, Hipponax, and Ananius (i.e. the canon), with the uncertain Asopodorus and Simylus. The concluding remarks of this chapter will hopefully be given consideration by the TLG editors for a revision of their use of the tag ‘Iamb.’ I began my survey by asking the question of who composed iamboi before the Hellenistic period, on the basis of explicit ancient references. Whatever the diYculties encountered, if we want to say anything about the ‘received iambos’ that goes beyond the canon, this survey is probably as good as it gets. Let us try to look past the Wlter of the Alexandrian canon; what can we see? According to the classical view of categorization, poets should be ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the corpus. Let us Wrst try a binary explanation, including in the ‘received iambos’ any poet who cannot be ruled out. The result is a corpus that, in addition to Archilochus, Semonides, and Hipponax, comprises Solon, Anacreon, Ananius, Susarion, Eucleides, Hermippus, Diphilus, Scythinus, Moschina, and Aeschrion. Table 1 certainly simpliWes many nuances in our analysis of the evidence, but it shows an interesting fact. Explicit evidence (true, not always strong), helps us to establish that from the seventh to the fourth centuries bce at least ten poets were active in the genre of iambos. Rather than a picture of demise, this is a picture of continuity. Through the centuries the emphasis was mainly on the trio Archilochus, Semonides, Hipponax. Their status in the literary system overshadows that of any other iambic poet. However, we should avoid letting a cultural construct such as a list of selected authors dictate the way we interpret historical evidence. As drama continued to be performed in Athens after Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes, who represent a tiny percentage of what was brought to the stage before the Hellenistic period, so iambos continued (on a diVerent scale) to be composed and performed after Archilochus, Semonides, and Hipponax, and we may be justiWed in assuming
54
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus Table 1. The ‘received iambos’ 7th to 4th century bce: in or out Poet
Centuries bce
Sappho
7th
Solon Anacreon Ananius Aristoxenus Xenophanes Susarion Margites Eucleides Timocreon Hermippus Diphilus Scythinus Euenus of Paros Moschina Aeschrion
7th/6th 6th 6th 6th 6th/5th 6th or 5th ? 6th or 5th 5th 2nd half 5th ? 5th or 4th 5th 4th end of 4th
in
out
that they also represent a small percentage of the general iambic output. Let us now look at the status of the ten poets that we have included in the ‘received iambos’, and oVer a second explanation. Some of them are known only as composers of iamboi. This is the case for Ananius, Scythinus, Moschina, and Aeschrion. We may call them ‘minor iambic poets’. Other poets are known particularly for their work in other genres, such as Solon (elegy; law?), Anacreon (melos), Susarion (comedy), Hermippus (comedy, parody?), and Diphilus (comedy). These may be denominated ‘non-predominantly iambic poets’. There is, however, one poet, Eucleides, who remains in a fuzzy area, for we cannot tell for sure whether his only extant fragment was perceived as an instance of iambos or of parody. Table 2 reXects the distinction between minor iambic poets and non-predominantly iambic ones. Eucleides and the lighter tone of grey suggest that, instead of taking the corpus as a discrete category, we might gain insight if we
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
55
Table 2. Minor iambic poets and non-predominantly iambic poets Poet
Centuries bce
Solon
7th/6th
Anacreon Ananius Susarion Eucleides Hermippus Diphilus Scythinus Moschina Aeschrion
6th 6th 6th or 5th 6th or 5th 2nd half 5th ? 5th or 4th 4th end of 4th
Minor Iambic Poets
Non-predominantly Iambic Poets
allow more gradation. Let us now attempt a third explanation, integrating all evidence discussed in the previous section. We found insuYcient evidence for including Sappho, Aristoxenus, Xenophanes, Margites, Timocreon, and Euenus in the ‘received iambos’. In some of the ancient references to their iamboi, perhaps in Sappho and most probably in Xenophanes of Lesbos, we may suspect that a mistake occurred in the ancient sources. In some cases I argued for a new interpretation of the evidence, as in Aristoxenus, the Margites, and Euenus. However, in most cases there is a reason why certain authors seldom chose the term iamboi for referring to the works of poets who did not compose, as far as the evidence allows us to tell, anything that the ancients may have termed iambos. In these cases, it seems that ancient witnesses ‘chunked’ salient features such as scoptic or abusive expression that they found in instances usually considered as belonging to diVerent genres. Thus the term iamboi is applied to Sappho’s abusive or scoptic poems, to Xenophanes’ silloi, to the mock-heroic Margites, and to Timocreon’s lampoon. We may well speak of genres that are adjacent to iambos because some of their instances were perceived to share certain salient features with iambos, although as a rule they were perceived as belonging to the broader group of invective or scoptic poetry to which iambos also belongs, but not as similar to iambos.
56
Greek Iambos: Genre and Corpus
Fig. 1. The ‘received iambos’: core and periphery
The case of Eucleides is diVerent. Evidence for his activity as an iambic poet cannot be ruled out, but his only extant fragment has a claim to parody, as Hipponax 128W has. This may also be the case of the Margites, and of one of the ‘Homeric’ poems, the Seven against Aktion (ƒ ( a K @Œ Ø), for which the Suda has the additional name iamboi (omicron 251.36, and the title is all we know). Eucleides, and perhaps some of the mock-heroic poems attributed to Homer, belong to a fuzzy area because some generic ambivalence was there already in antiquity. As we have seen in the second explanation, some poets were well known for their work in other genres, but incidental references suggest that they composed iamboi as a minor part of their output. This is the case of the non-predominantly iambic poets Solon, Anacreon, Hermippus, Susarion, and Diphilus. Finally, we have a group of minor iambic poets: Scythinus, Moschina, Aeschrion, minor from the perspective of the Alexandrian canon. These are poets who were not included and were therefore less studied and transmitted.
The Corpus of Iambic Poets
57
The ‘received iambos’ is best presented by a graded diagram where the canonical poets (in three degrees) are in the centre, minor iambic poets next, followed by poets who composed iamboi as a minor part of their work, then by a fuzzy area of works with an equal claim to belong to parody, and outside the circle poets linked to iambos by virtue of a salient feature of their work that was shared by the iambos genre. Fig. 1 of the ‘received iambos’ will serve in this book as a working deWnition of the corpus of iambic poetry. One important corollary of this delineation of the corpus of iambic poetry is that works of the authors included display a variety of themes and functions, with the cluster of psogos, loidoria, kakegoria, and also aischrologia representing only a small part. This surely contradicts ancient theoretical deWnitions of the genre, which take that cluster as deWning features of the genre, but it is consistent with what ancient readers and scholars named iambos and with the authors they denominated, edited, and studied as iambic poets.
This page intentionally left blank
Part II Ways of Seeing The study of genre is thus not one of Wxity but rather one that explores diVerent historical ‘ways of seeing’. Kapchan (1995), 482.
This page intentionally left blank
3 Iambos in Aristotle’s Works What is the place of iambos in Aristotle’s history of poetry? How does the genre of iambos relate to psogos? What does Aristotle really mean by the expression iambike idea? Ancient and modern perceptions of the nature and function of ancient Greek iambos have been largely shaped by Aristotle’s statements in the Poetics. In this chapter I shall look afresh at those statements and oVer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s conceptualization of iambos. A survey of the use of the terms iambos and iambeion in the Aristotelian corpus will be helpful before we turn to chapter 4 of the Poetics and set Aristotle’s well-known statements about iambos in the framework of his own theory of the development of poetry.
1. ARISTOTLE’S USE OF TERMS The term iambos is used in the Poetics with reference to a poetic genre, but Aristotle uses the term in other ways as well. Looking at uses of iambos and its cognates in the whole of his work will make our understanding of the Poetics more comprehensive. In the Rhetoric (1408b21–1409a21) Aristotle uses the term iambos in the sense of ‘iambic rhythm’. The passage in question surveys the appropriate rhythms for prose composition. In accordance with the principle that speech should have rhythm but not metre (ÞıŁe E å Ø e º ª; æ b ), Aristotle states a preference for the paean and rejects the dactyl ( æfiH), the iambos (YÆ ), and the trochaeos ( æåÆE). Two reasons are oVered for rejecting those
62
Ways of Seeing
rhythms: the associations they evoke and the fact that they are all not only rhythms but also metres.
H b ÞıŁH › b æfiH B Iºº P º Œ ØŒB ±æ Æ ; › YÆ ÆP K Ø ºØ H ººH ðØe ºØ Æ ø H æø NÆ EÆ çŁªª ÆØ ºª Þ; E b
Å Æ ª ŁÆØ ŒÆd KŒ BÆØ: › b
æåÆE Œæƌ، æ: źE b a æ æÆ: Ø ªaæ æå æe ÞıŁe
a æ æÆ. (Rh. 1408b32–1409a1) Of rhythms, the heroic [i.e. dactylic rhythm]1 is solemn and not conversational and needs musical intonation; the iambic by itself is the language of the many; thus, all people most often speak in iambics. But [formal speech] should be digniWed and moving. The trochaic meter is rather too much of comic dance (Œæƌ، æ), as is clear from trochaic tetrameters; for they are tripping rhythms.2
Aristotle speaks further of the ratio between long and short syllables, which in iambos and trochaeos is that of two to one (2 : 1). Here he bases his arguments about metre on earlier theories of rhythm, which throughout the classical period used the term iambos as a rhythmical term simultaneously with use for a type of poetry. We shall go back to this in Chapter 7, section 1. In our passage Aristotle shifts almost imperceptibly from rhythm to metre, turning from iambos and trochaeos to iambeia (NÆ EÆ, ‘iambics’, i.e. iambic trimeters) and tetrametra ( æ æÆ, ‘tetrameters’, i.e. trochaic tetrameters). What associations does he think they evoke in audiences? Whereas the dactyl is solemn and calls for harmony, and tetrameters are linked to the cordax, the licentious dance of Old Comedy, the iambics are used by most people and therefore are not digniWed enough. Thus, at a middle point between solemnity and licentiousness, iambic rhythm and metre appear in Aristotle’s eyes as too common to be capable of stirring emotions. This semantic interpretation of rhythm is no doubt related to earlier views on the moral eVects of rhythm upon character that we Wnd in Damon and Plato, to which we shall return. What Aristotle has in mind here is most probably the use of the iambic trimeter for dialogue in Attic drama. In the Poetics 1 Kennedy (1991), 238, explains ‘heroic’ as ‘dactylic hexameter’. 2 Translated by Kennedy (1991), 238.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
63
we Wnd a similar perception of the iambic metre as common, conversational, and therefore most appropriate for dramatic dialogue (Po. 1449a21–8). This view is consistent with Aristotle’s use of terms. Indeed, he regularly uses iambeia for iambic trimeters (Rh. 1408b35, Po. 1459b37–1460) and only once does he use æ æ instead (Po. 1447b11, unlike Herodotus, see Chapter 7, sect. 2.i). As a rule he does not apply iambeia to iambic poetry. On the contrary, he uses iambeion and iambeia to introduce quotations from tragedy and comedy (Rh. 1409b9: Sophocles; Rh. 1411a18: Anaxandrides). Iambeion also appears in discussions of tragedy in both the Poetics and the Rhetoric (Po. 1449a21, 25; 1459a10, 12; Rh. 1404a31). It is used, too, with reference to the Margites (Po. 1448b31), and to metaphors (Rh. 1406b4, bracketed by Kassel; Po. 1458b19–20). In all these cases, as well as in the passage cited above, connotations of abuse are absent in relation to the iambic rhythm. This contrasts sharply with the explanation we Wnd in the Poetics (1448b28–32) of the origins of the term iambeion: Øe ŒÆd NÆ E ŒÆº E ÆØ F; ‹ Ø K fiH æfiø fiø N ØÇ Iºººı (‘for that reason it is called iambeion nowadays, because in that metre they used to abuse each other’). Thus, although the iambeion Wgures in both the Rhetoric and the Poetics as the more neutral metre regarding content and the more natural in terms of colloquial language, yet the origin of the term is connected with the exchange of abuse. We shall return to this inconsistency in section 6.i. With regard to our passage it is noteworthy that, unlike the trochaeos, which is explained by an etymological argument (‘for it is a running rhythm’ implies a connection between æåÆE and æå æ ), this is not the case with the iambos. It appears as a rather neutral rhythm, without etymological explanations. Aristotle transmits the earliest quotations from Archilochus’ iamboi in a passage where the Parian poet functions as a rhetorical model (Rh. 1418b23–33). Speaking about character, in a discussion of enthymemes (rhetorical syllogisms), Aristotle suggests that sometimes a speaker should put in another person’s mouth certain things about himself or about someone else. N b e qŁ; K Øc ØÆ æd Æ F ºª Ø j K çŁ j ƌ溪 Æ j I غª Æ å Ø; ŒÆd æd ¼ººı j ºØæ Æ j IªæØŒ Æ; æ åæc ºª Æ Ø E; ‹ æ Œæ Å Ø E K fiH *غ fiø ŒÆd K fi B Ø Ø; ŒÆd ‰
64
Ways of Seeing
æå ºå łª Ø: Ø E ªaæ e Æ æÆ ºª Æ æd B ŁıªÆ æe K fiH N fiø åæÅ ø ¼ º PŁ K Ø P I , (Archil. 122W) ŒÆd e +æøÆ e Œ Æ K fiH N fiø y Iæåc h Ø a ˆª ø. (Archil. 19W) ŒÆd ‰ 猺B e `¥Æ bæ B ت Å æe e Æ æÆ ‰ º ª ø ( æø. In regard to ethos, since there are sometimes things to be said about oneself that are invidious or prolix or contradictory, and about another that are abusive or boorish, it is best to attribute them to another person, as Isocrates does in the Philippus and in the Antidosis and as Archilochus does in censure; for he introduces the father speaking of his daughter in an iambic poem (iambos): ‘Nothing is unexpected nor declared impossible on oath’ and [introduces] Charon the carpenter in [another] iambic work (iambos), which begins ‘Nothing to me the [wealth] of Gyges.’ And as Sophocles does, making Haemon speak to his father about Antigone on the basis of what others say.3
The poems mentioned here are written in iambic metre (fr. 19W) and trochaic tetrameters (fr. 122W). This passage is, therefore, our earliest explicit witness for the use of the label iambos for both types of metre. Along with Isocrates and Sophocles, Aristotle cites two poems by Archilochus in which he identiWes the speaking persona: a father in fr. 122W and Charon the carpenter in fr. 19W.4 However, even though 3 Translated by Kennedy (1991), 277. 4 In fr. 19W it is not clear whether ‰ æå ºå łª Ø exempliWes ‘speaking about oneself’ ( æd Æ F ºª Ø) or ‘speaking about someone else’ ( æd ¼ººı). Comm. in Arist. Graeca xxi(2).255.28–256.3 takes Archil. 19W as an example of æd ¼ººı ºª Ø (Aristotle’s K fiH N fiø rendered as K NÆ ØŒE åØ). Lennartz (2000b), 7, however, suggests that Charon is speaking about himself, and that the poem would then exemplify the technique of æd Æ F ºª Ø. Cf. Call. iamb. 4.61 V. for the use of the same technique: the olive tree reports the birds’ words about itself. In fr. 122W, even though there is some controversy in the identiWcation of ‘the father’ and ‘the daughter’ (see Bossi (1990), 179 for a survey of opinions), it is clear that the poem speaks about someone other than the poet’s persona. ‘The father’ is usually identiWed as Neoboule’s father. Lasserre and Bonnard (1958), 27, however, identiWed him as the ‘I’ ’s father, i.e. Archilochus’ father, ‘the daughter’ consequently being Archilochus’ sister.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
65
Aristotle oVers Archil. 122W and 19W as examples of łª Ø, no vituperation or criticism is apparent in the words quoted. For Aristotle notes only the initial words of the poems in order to identify them, as was usual in antiquity in referring to a whole work or poem.5 Psogos must have appeared later in the poems, perhaps even at the end. But what kind of psogos would that have been? In the Rhetoric Aristotle identiWes psogos as one of the types of epideictic speech which is opposed to epainos (ÆØ), praise (see section 5).6 Since the references to Archilochus’ poems exemplify a rhetorical technique, łª Ø in this passage must refer to conveying the opposite of praise, that is ‘criticism’ or ‘vituperation’. How was this criticism or vituperation achieved? Both poems have a similar structure: a serious or reXective beginning, probably followed by an unexpected twist. With regard to Archil. 19W, it is usually believed that the speaker was revealed at the end of the poem, as Fra¨nkel suggested: ‘So sprach der Zimmermann Charon auf Thasos’.7 To be sure, Horace uses a similar technique in his second Epode, where the reader discovers at the end that the speaker was the banker AlWus. Before Horace, Callimachus did something similar, perhaps in a more sophisticated manner. At the end of his second Iambos not only is Aesop mentioned as the source of the fable, but so too his unhappy death, caused by his criticism of the Delphians.8 If Callimachus and Horace followed the Archilochean model of fr. 19W, one may conjecture that Archil. 19W achieved vituperation by a narrator’s revealing the identity of the speaking persona at the end of the poem. Therefore, in the examples adduced by Aristotle, psogos, vituperation, is an eVect achieved in the poems not by addressing individuals by name and insulting them, but through dramatic impersonation, perhaps embedded in a narrative frame. 5 This ‘incipit’ was later used by Callimachus in his Pinakes (PfeiVer (1968), 129; Nachmanson (1969), 37–8). 6 Rh. 1358b13: KØ ØŒ ØŒF b e b ÆØ e b ł ª (cf. 1367a34; 1368a33–7; 1408b14; 1414b30; 1415a6. Cf. Wartelle (1982), s.v. ł ª and łª Ø. 7 Fra¨nkel (1969), 153–4. 8 Cf. Kerkhecker (1999), 61–2.
66
Ways of Seeing
To complete the range of uses of the term iambos emerging from Aristotle, a passage from the Politics (1336b12–23) should be taken into account. In dealing with the education of children, Aristotle declares that they should not be exposed to aischrologia (ÆNå溪 Æ, obscene language) nor spend time with slaves, nor be exposed to obscenity in the visual arts. In the case of male adults, however, he allows for two exceptions in which aischrologia is to be allowed: ritual obscenity, and the representation of iamboi and comedy. A few important points emerge from this passage, such as a hostile attitude to iamboi and comedy, which, as we shall see, is nevertheless milder than that of Plato, and hints of a distinction between ritual performance and staged or Wctional performance of aischrologia and iamboi. I shall go back to this passage when speaking about the performance of iambos in Chapter 9, section 3, and the perception of iamboi as carriers of obscene language, in Chapter 11, section 2. Let us sum up Aristotle’s use of terms. He employs iambos for a rhythm (Rh. 1408b32–1409a6), for speciWc poems (Rh. 1418b29–31), thus generically for a type of poetry (Pol. 1336b12–23 and Po. passim) and for a type of public performance (Pol. 1336b12–23). As the name of a rhythm, iambos appears as colloquial and not digniWed enough for formal speeches. As a type of performance, iamboi appear side by side with comedy as genres displaying obscenity and thus not appropriate for free-born children to hear. As a generic term, iambos applies to poems written both in iambic trimeters and in trochaic tetrameters. The two instances Aristotle cites achieve the eVect of vituperation through dramatic impersonation, perhaps embedded in a Wrst-person narrative. As for Aristotle’s general use of the term iambeion, in the majority of cases it does not appear linked to criticism, vituperation, or obscenity, with one exception: the explanation of the origins of the term through a hypothesis of earlier use for the exchange of abuse. This explanation is reviewed in section 6.i, where I argue against its historical validity. Aristotle’s use of iambos and iambeion does not substantially diVer from general use in the Wfth and fourth centuries bce, as we shall see in Chapter 7. It may well be said that Aristotle reXects the range of uses inherited by Hellenistic writers and scholars.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
67
2 . A R IS TOT L E ’ S S C H O L A R S H IP O N IAMB OS Aristotle’s interest in iambic poetry went further than the incidental references in the preceding section suggest. In ancient lists of his published writings we Wnd a work in three books titled DiYculties of Archilochus, Euripides and Choerilus (IæÆ Æ æåغ åı ¯PæØ ı +Øæ ºı K Ø º Ø ª0 , Hesychius s.v. æØ ºÅ l. 144). This could have been a product of Aristotle’s school. From comparison with a work with a similar title, the Homeric DiYculties (IæÆ Æ ›ÅæØŒ, also known as ˇæı æ ºÆ Æ and ˇÅæØŒa ÇÅ Æ Æ, ‘Homeric Problems’),9 we may infer that the work on Archilochus dealt with textual and critical problems. It is very likely that Aristotle touched on some aspect of Archilochus’ life and work in the lost book On Poets10 but there is no evidence for that. The fact that a predecessor of Aristotle, Glaucus of Rhegium, also dealt with Archilochus in his On the Archaic Poets and Musicians ( æd H IæåÆ ø ØÅ H ŒÆd ıØŒH) and that a pupil of Aristotle’s, Heraclides Ponticus, wrote On Archilochus and Homer in two books ( æd æåغ åı ŒÆd ˇæı Æ0 0 , DL 5. 88) indicates that Aristotle and his school were part of an ongoing scholarly interest in Archilochus, and, we may infer, in his iamboi.11 Aristotle’s interest in iambos as a literary genre was probably apparent in the lost second book of the Poetics. There is enough evidence for the existence of such a book, which Aristotle announces at Po. 1449b21–2, and which would have contained the discussion of the genres of the laughable promised at Rh. 1372a1 and 1419b5.12 Ancient lists of Aristotle’s works indicate that the Poetics was made up of two books,13 as does the subscriptio of the 1278 Latin translation of the book14 and the end of Avicenna’s
9 Rose (1886), no. 24 (‘rhetorica’ section); PfeiVer (1968), 69. 10 Rose (1886), 76–81; Rostagni (1926–7). 11 PfeiVer (1968), 144–5. 12 As well as the treatment of katharsis mentioned at Pol. 1342b38. 13 DL 5.240 (83): æÆªÆ Æ åÅ ØÅ ØŒB Æ0 0 ; Vita Hesychiana 75: åÅ ØÅ ØŒB . 14 ‘primus Aristotelis de arte poetica liber explicit’.
68
Ways of Seeing
(980–1034) commentary.15 There are hints of the possible content of the second book of the Poetics in the manuscript known as Codex Riccardianus 46 (B), a fourteenth-century manuscript of descent independent of the Codex Parisinus 1741 (A).16 At the end of A we Wnd the words æd b s æƪfiø Æ ŒÆd KØ Æ . . . NæŁø
ÆF Æ17 (‘As for tragedy and epic poetry . . . let the things said suYce’). This is a standard formula of transition from one major subject matter to another,18 often followed by a æd . Now at the end of B indications of words appear that are not in A. In 1925 Landi suggested restoring these as æd b N ø ŒÆd Œøfiø Æ ªæłø (‘I shall write on iamboi and comedy’) on the basis of the surviving traces in the manuscript.19 This restoration, although not entirely conclusive, gives some support to the view of an Aristotelian study of iambos beside that of comedy. It is therefore probable that in the lost book of the Poetics a treatment of comedy balanced that of tragedy, including a fuller discussion of the genres of the laughable referred to in the Rhetoric, and a treatment of iambos. It is possible that Aristotle compared comedy to iambos in a similar way to his occasional discussion of epic poetry together with tragedy in the extant Poetics (in the Wrst chapters and in chapter 26), but whether iambos achieved a status equivalent to that of epic poetry remains an open question.20 We are left with the extant Poetics to reconstruct Aristotle’s view of iambos. 15 Dahiyat (1974), 121. For a hypothetical reconstruction of Poetics II based on the Tractatus Coislinianus, see Janko (1984). A succinct discussion of the evidence on the second book of the Poetics can be found in Lucas (1968), pp. xii–xiv. 16 Lobel (1933), 17, 48; Hardy (1952), 25. 17 The Riccardianus reads ÆF Æ instead of ÆF Æ. 18 Rostagni (1927), 120; Hardy (1952), 25–6; Else (1957), 653 n. 66. 19 Landi (1925). A few years earlier McMahon (1917) argued emphatically against the existence of a second book. Editors are often sceptical about Landi’s restoration. So Rostagni (1927), 133, although he includes it in his text (1927, 120). Similarly Else (1957), 651, who does so with caution: < æd b N ø . . . ?>. Kassel (1965), 49 does not include the restoration in his edition, and suggests the possibility of reading P ªæłø. Lanza (1987) reproduces Kassel’s text, but seems unacquainted with Landi. See also Halliwell (1995), 140 n. 2. My own photocopy of a microWlm of the end of the Riccardianus is unfortunately not better than the image available in Landi’s 1925 publication (I am grateful to the Aristoteles-Archiv of the Freie Universita¨t Berlin for allowing me access to the microWlm of the Riccardianus). 20 For views unfavourable to a full treatment of iambos in the second book of the Poetics, see Janko (1984), 61, 69, and 250.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
69
3. THE P O E T I C S ON GENRES 21 The elliptical nature of many statements in the Poetics suggests that it was not intended to be self-suYcient; nevertheless it is, as Stephen Halliwell says, ‘a document substantially produced by Aristotle himself ’.22 In chapters 4 and 5 we Wnd an outline of theories that Aristotle had probably presented elsewhere, either in his lost book On Poets or in lectures delivered in the Lyceum.23 Let us now turn to the Poetics and attempt to reconstruct the theoretical framework in which Aristotle’s views of iambos can be understood. The Wrst three chapters of the Poetics lay down criteria for a classiWcation of the species of poetry according to medium, object, and mode of representation. This formal approach, as Ford observes, is particularly useful for thinking of poetry as ‘text removed from context’.24 However, in spite of the impression of a very neat grid that these Wrst chapters create, Aristotle by no means intends to map out all Greek historical poetic genres, but to present general principles of analysis. Moreover, he does so within a teleological hierarchy in which tragedy and comedy occupy the highest rank. This theoretical classiWcation leaves occasional ‘gaps’ which are not Wlled in by any historical genre, or, conversely, a conceptual category is created for which Greek has no term.25 If we approach the Wrst chapters of the Poetics with the intention of learning what ‘minor’ genres such as parody or iambos looked like, we will be deeply disappointed. The Poetics is not a handbook of Greek Poetry, but a theoretical and in many cases prescriptive work26 that takes for granted a familiarity
21 For Aristotle’s theory of genres, see Bal (1982); Lanza (1983); Halliwell (1986); 253–85; Ford (2002), 262–6. 22 Halliwell (1986), 28, 30. 23 e.g. in his lost book On Poets, Rostagni (1926–7), xxix–xxx. 24 Ford (2002), 263. Riu (2003), on the contrary, Wnds these criteria appropriate to an oral context (pp. 44–52, 56). 25 Po. 1447a28–b2 refers to a group compatible with the modern category of belleslettres/Belletristik. It must be noted, however, that IıØ at 1447b9 is Bernay’s conjecture, though supported by the Arabic version (Else (1957), 29). That part of the problem derives from Aristotle’s application of analytical tools to an ethnic classiWcation was pointed out by Fishelov (1992). 26 Halliwell (1986), 37.
70
Ways of Seeing
with much Greek literature that is nowadays simply lost. Its main interest is not in individual works and poets. They are mentioned as examples, but they do not in themselves constitute the object of inquiry. Hence, the absence of certain authors or genres from the Wrst chapters of the Poetics does not reXect their relative signiWcance in Greek society, but Aristotle’s thought and methods. A case in point is the list of mimetic species in chapter 1 where lyric and iambic poetry are not mentioned.27 It has been inferred from this list that lyric poetry was excluded from Aristotle’s work because it did not suit his concept of poetry,28 or because the genres were in fact nearly extinct.29 However, as Else has pointed out, the list is not intended to be exhaustive but representative.30 In fact, the Wve branches of poetic art mentioned here correspond to the categories of competition at the main Athenian festivals, the Panathenaia and the City Dionysia.31 Thus, they are included because they constitute a list of incontestable particular cases useful for laying a foundation for the introduction of the general concept of ÅØ. An extreme version of the view denying iambos the status of poetry was put forward by Janko (1984),32 although he later retracted.33 Perhaps following Else, who maintains that ‘Archilochus’ iambics would barely be mimetic in Aristotle’s eyes, and only at the most primitive level’,34 Janko (1984) argued that for Aristotle iambos was 27 KØ Æ c ŒÆd B æƪfiø Æ ÅØ Ø b Œøfiø Æ ŒÆd ØŁıæÆ ØÅ ØŒc ŒÆd B ÆPºÅ ØŒB º Å ŒÆd ŒØŁÆæØ ØŒB AÆØ ıªåıØ sÆØ Ø Ø e º (1447a13–16). 28 Rostagni (1927), pp. lxxii, lxxvii V. and p. 2. Similarly Gudeman (1934), 81. 29 Lucas (1968), 54–5. Of major impact on contemporary genre theory is Genette (1977), who draws far-reaching conclusions based on Aristotle’s silence regarding lyric, iambic, and elegiac poetry. For arguments against the supposition that genres omitted or neglected in the Poetics were unfamiliar or unimportant in Aristotle’s time see Halliwell (1986), 277–85. 30 Else (1957), 1–2, 12; similarly Rosenmeyer (1985), 78; Halliwell (1986), 279. 31 Rotstein (2004) with further references. On pre-Hellenistic musical contests, see Reisch (1885); Von Scheliha (1987); Kotsidu (1991); Ford (2002), 272–86. One of Aristotle’s disciples, Dicaearchus, wrote a æd ıØŒH Iªø, Wehrli (1967). 32 Janko (1984), 61, 69, 250. 33 Janko (1991), 38 and n. 173. Similarly, Heath (1987), 53 n. 11 described the iambike idea as ‘non-mimetic’, but later described this notion as ‘a blunder: primitive ł ªØ were already mimetic’ (Heath (1989), 349 n. 20). 34 Else (1957), 46.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
71
‘not poetry at all’, because in Aristotle’s view it was not mimetic.35 However, as we have seen above in section 1, for Aristotle iambos is a genre of poetry in the real world. Granted, iambic poetry, as well as elegy and lyric poetry, Wnd no niche of their own in the Poetics due to their deWciency from the point of view of mimesis.36 To Aristotle, these genres are far from the telos of poetry. Furthermore, they lack institutional reinforcements such as civic competition or a distinct role in public ritual, whereas in the Poetics, as well as in other of his scholarly work, Aristotle focuses precisely on civic institutionalized genres. It is also possible that he found those types of poetry insuYcient in length to be appreciated (cf. Po. chapter 7). Most speciWcally, iambos, to Aristotle, did not have the appropriate size (ª Ł) to be beautiful.37 In sum, the absence of iamboi from the Wrst chapters of the Poetics has little to do with their status as poetry. A main reason for their omission may be that they make bad examples for Aristotle’s neat categories.38 This point is well illustrated by applying Aristotle’s criteria of classiWcation to the corpus of the ‘received iambos’. I will conclude this section, therefore, by doing just that after a brief survey of these criteria of classiWcation. Aristotle proposes a classiWcation of mimesis according to three diVerentiae: medium, object, and mode of representation.39 The classiWcation according to media (chapter 1) distinguishes between the elements of rhythm (ÞıŁ ), language (º ª), and harmony (±æ Æ), either on their own or combined. The distinction of those three elements belongs to the tradition of musical theory,40 and it 35 Contra Halliwell (1986), 276 n. 36. 36 Finkelberg (1998), 11, 196; Halliwell (1986), 238–52, 276–84. Bolonyai (1998) examines the reasons for a theory of lyric genres remaining only implicit in Aristotle’s Poetics. 37 e ªaæ ŒÆºe K ªŁ Ø ŒÆd Ø K ; Po. 1450b37; ƒ b I d H N ø ŒøfiøøØd Kª . . . Øa e Çø ŒÆd K Ø
æÆ a åÆ Æ rÆØ ÆF Æ KŒ ø, Po. 1449a4–6. See BelWore (2001) for the notions of magnitude (ª Ł) and length (BŒ) in Aristotle’s Poetics, particularly in relation to tragedy and epic poetry. 38 On the omission of certain genres in the Poetics, see Halliwell (1986), 276–85. 39 A poem’s addressee, an important feature of iambos, elegy, and melic poem, plays no role in Aristotle’s classiWcation. 40 Cf. Pl. Grg. 449d, 502c; R. 398d; Hp. Ma. 285d; Lg. 656c, 669b, 800d. See Lomiento (unpublished).
72
Ways of Seeing
accounts for the technical aspects of the art of poetry. The classiWcation according to object (chapter 2) has an ethical and social basis.41 It distinguishes between two types of characters, superior and inferior (ıÆEØ and çÆFºØ). The pairing is a common one (e.g. EN 1113a25–6; EE 1221b32–3); in the Nicomachean Ethics (1145b8–10) it appears coordinated with KÆØ and ł Œ .42 Thus types of characters are conceived as correlative to types of utterances about them: elevated characters deserving praise and base characters deserving blame (cf. EN 1110a31–b1). The traditional distinction between praise and blame lies behind Aristotle’s second diVerentia. In chapter 2 of the Poetics, however, he introduces a middle point between the two poles, oVering an additional classiWcation of characters into three categories: better than us, worse than us, or much like ourselves.43 This type of tripartite classiWcation into two opposites and a third, intermediate or mixed element, not uncommon in both Plato and Aristotle, plays no further role in the Poetics.44 Moreover, the historical account of chapter 4 follows the binary mode of classiWcation. We have, therefore, traces of two diVerent systems of poetry classiWcation: an older, traditional binary system (‘praise and blame’), and a newer, philosophical, tripartite system possibly with Platonic antecedents. Finally, the classiWcation according to mode of representation (chapter 3) introduces impersonation as a means of distinguishing between the narrative, the dramatic, and the mixed modes of mimesis.45 Here Aristotle clearly follows Plato’s argument in the Republic (392d–394d). Let us now see how these three diVerentiae work as analytical tools when applied to the corpus of ancient iambic poetry deWned in Chapter 2. 41 Winkler (1990), 310. 42 ˜Œ E c l KªŒæ ØÆ ŒÆd ŒÆæ æ Æ H ıÆ ø ŒÆd ½ H KÆØ H rÆØ; IŒæÆ Æ ŒÆd ƺƌ Æ H çƺø ŒÆd ł Œ H (Arist. EN 1145b8–10). 43 Else (1957), 87–9 argues in favour of a bilateral division of character. For a tripartite scheme, see Halliwell (1987), 75. 44 Lucas (1968), 64. See Lloyd (1966), 162–3 for the notion of ‘intermediate’ in Aristotle’s classiWcation of opposites. 45 The third diVerentia has been taken as bipartite in addition to tripartite, see Else (1957), 90–101 and Lucas (1968), 66–7 for the two possible interpretations of Po. 1448a19–28. I am persuaded by Else’s suggestion (1957, 97) that there are three actual modes but only two principles at work (narration and dramatic presentation).
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
73
Medium. Iamboi in the received corpus make use of language and rhythm, and if the hypothesis of the occasional musical performance of iamboi is correct (see Chapter 8), they are sometimes set to music as well. If iamboi can be sometimes recited, sometimes sung, sometimes to instrumental music, it follows that mode of performance does not provide a distinct criterion to distinguish them from other genres. Object. If we use the binary system of superior and base characters, we are obliged to admit that iamboi tend to represent base characters. However, Aristotle mentions Hegemon of Thasos and Nicochares as authors who depict characters ‘worse than us’ (1448a12–14). He refers to Hegemon as the Wrst composer of parodies, and the transmitted title, ˜ غ Æ, ‘a tale of cowardice’, is consistent with a mockheroic poem.46 It seems, therefore, that Aristotle took parody as the most representative example of poetic depiction of base characters. Moreover, certain poems in the ‘received iambos’, such as military narratives in trochaic tetrameter, do not depict base characters at all. In this sense the tripartite system (with poets portraying ‘people better than ourselves, worse than ourselves, or on the same level’)47 proves more appropriate, with iamboi representing characters either like us or worse, though never idealized ones. Object of representation does not work well, then, as a diVerentia of iamboi. Mode. Iamboi can resort to narration (or, with Bolonyai, to ‘reporting’ or ‘storytelling’),48 impersonation, or a mixture of both. Consequently, mode of presentation does not work as a distinguishing diVerentia for the ‘received iambos’. As becomes apparent from this exercise, the application of the three diVerentiae that Aristotle proposes for the analysis of genres does not result in a neat analysis of iamboi.49 The diVerentiae seem better suited to grander genres, such as epic poetry, tragedy, and comedy. The corpus of iambic poetry composed up to Aristotle’s time does not provide a clear-cut example for his classiWcation of genres. Thus, the reason for not mentioning iamboi in the Wrst chapters of the Poetics has nothing to do with their status as poetry, but with their suitability to illustrate Aristotle’s analytic methods. 46 Lucas (1968), 65. 48 Bolonyai (1998), 37.
47 Translated by Halliwell (1987), 32. 49 Cf. Halliwell (1986), 282.
74
Ways of Seeing 4. ARISTOTLE ON THE HISTORY O F POETRY ( POETICS 4 ) 50
The sketch of literary history found in the Poetics (1448b20–1449b9) has captured the imagination of classical scholars for generations.51 The passage has often been mined for evidence bearing on the origins of tragedy and comedy.52 More recently, the speculative character of many statements in Poetics 4 has been recognized,53 but is the outline totally ‘a-historical’?54 To what extent were Aristotle’s arguments based on factual information? In what follows I argue that we Wnd here two diVerent yet complementary approaches to the development of poetry: an empirical and a theoretical. Understanding these two diVerent conceptual frameworks will help us disentangle what is meant to be factual information from speculation. References to iambos should then be interpreted according to the modality of explanation in which they appear. In other words, if we want to understand Aristotle’s conceptualization of iambos, we must Wrst understand how he operates as a literary historian.55 50 Earlier versions of this section were presented at a ‘Symposium on Aristotle’s Poetics’, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (11 May 2003), at the ‘137th APA Annual Meeting’ (Montreal, 5–8 Jan. 2006), and in partial form at ‘II Simpo´sio de Estudos Cla´ssicos da Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo’ (6–8 Nov. 2006). Rotstein (2007b) is an earlier Portuguese version of this section. 51 Interest has focused particularly on the origins of dramatic genres. Studies on the historical account of Aristotle’s Poetics can be found in Lord (1974); de Ste. Croix (1975); Else (1986), 89–102; Halliwell (1987), 78–88; Winkler (1990); and more recently Depew (2007); Nagy (2007). 52 Csapo (2007), 8–10 sets Aristotle’s history of poetry in the context of the socalled ritual theory, particularly in relation to the origins of drama. 53 Else (1957) was a turning point in considering ‘Aristotle’s ‘‘history’’ of poetry before Aeschylus a logical construction rather than a genuine history’ (p. x, and similarly on pp. 126–7, 145, 148–9, 152–7, 161–2). Cf. Pickard-Cambridge (1962), 94–7, 133–4; Halliwell (1986), 37, 92–6, 255; Winkler (1990). 54 Halliwell (1986), 95. Halliwell’s perceptions of Aristotle’s historical account as abstract cultural and literary theory apply to what I deWne as the Theoretical Approach (Halliwell (1986), 256, 269). 55 Gudeman (1931), 82, argues that Aristotle’s conclusions are sometimes the result of deduction, sometimes of induction. He believed that the two strata were clearly distinguishable. Depew (2007), 131 oVers a genealogy of poetic genres that contains elements of the two accounts in the same line of development. Cf. Rusten (2006).
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
75
Telling the history of poetry involves explaining change in the creation of cultural products. Aristotle approaches the issue by taking genres, that is, concepts, as protagonists, as entities changing through time. In Po. 1448b20–1449b9 change is explained in several ways: as a spontaneous event with no external agents; sometimes through a biological metaphor of natural growth or as something brought about by external agents (i.e. poets). Accordingly, change appears at times as the result of poets’ choices between discrete entities, sometimes as a chain of continuity, one genre resulting or deriving from another. Thus in this account we can distinguish two diVerent modalities of explanation. The Wrst is theoretical or deductive; it infers a process from the outcome of that process (what is likely to have happened, NŒ ).56 The second is empirical or inductive, it attempts to reconstruct phenomena through available information (personal experience or documentation). Such a twofold approach, theoretical and empirical, is consistent with Aristotle’s methods in other Welds of research.57 Indeed, as a scientist, Aristotle based his historical outline on empirical observation, whereas as a philosopher he strove for generality. Of course, the result is a mixture of theory and empiricism.58 Nevertheless, a characterization of each approach will shed light on the place of iambos in Aristotle’s history of poetry. Since the two diVerent modes of explanation roughly, though not entirely, coincide with two diVerent sections of the account, it will be 56 Else (1957), 148–9. References to arguments based on historical probability (ŒÆ a e NŒ ) in Herodotus can be found in Lloyd (1975), 162–3; Lateiner (1989), 97–8, 141–2; Asheri (2007), 22–3; see also next note. 57 On Aristotle’s methods (causal explanation versus systematic observation of phenomena) in his biology, see PA 639b6–640a33, with Balme (1972). Lloyd’s comments on the passage are illuminating: ‘This is a mode of apodeixis where you start from what will be, the telos—health or man—and work back to what had to be, or become, to produce that telos. The argument is deductive, but it does not deduce what follows from the starting-point in the sense of subsequent changes or processes, rather it deduces the antecedent of the telos. One might call it the deduction of the antecedents, though antecedents in a chronological or ontological not a logical sense’ (Lloyd (1996), 32). For a similar mixture of methods in other Aristotelian writings, see Huxley (1972), esp. at 168. On Aristotle’s historical writings, see Weil (1960), esp. at 130–45. On his historical methods, see Huxley (1972), esp. at 160–1. In Aristotle’s presentation of the past, for example, in the history of constitutions, Weil (1977), 215 distinguishes two tendencies, namely, to uncover the truth by means of evidence and to collect and interpret evidence according to his own theories. 58 Or ‘a mixture of facts and speculation’, Winkler (1990), 307.
76
Ways of Seeing
convenient to have the whole passage divided into sections in order to facilitate reference. Introduction (Po. 1448b20–3) 1. ŒÆ a çØ b Z E F Ø EŁÆØ ŒÆd B ±æ Æ ŒÆd F ÞıŁF ð a ªaæ æÆ ‹ Ø æØÆ H ÞıŁH K Ø çÆ æeÞ K IæåB ƒ çıŒ
æe ÆP a ºØ Æ ŒÆ a ØŒæe æª KªÅÆ c ÅØ KŒ H ÆP å ØÆ ø.59 Theoretical or Deductive Approach (Po. 1448b24–1449a6) 2. Ø ŁÅ b ŒÆ a a NŒ EÆ XŁÅ ÅØ: ƒ b ªaæ
æØ a ŒÆºa KØF æ Ø ŒÆd a H Ø ø; ƒ b P º æØ a H çƺø; æH ł ªı ØF ; u æ æØ oı ŒÆd KªŒØÆ: H b s æe ˇæı P e å N E ØF ÅÆ; NŒe b rÆØ ºº; Ie b, ˇæı IæÆØ Ø; x KŒ ı › Ææª Å ŒÆd a
ØÆF Æ: K x ŒÆ a e ±æ
ŒÆd e NÆ E qºŁ æ—Øe ŒÆd NÆ E ŒÆº E ÆØ F; ‹ Ø K fiH æfiø fiø N ØÇ Iºººı. 3. ŒÆd Kª H ƺÆØH ƒ b æøØŒH ƒ b N ø ØÅ Æ : u æ b ŒÆd a ıÆEÆ ºØ Æ ØÅ c , ˇÅæ q ð ªaæ På ‹ Ø s Iººa ŒÆd Ø Ø æÆÆ ØŒa K Å Þ, o ø ŒÆd e B Œøfiø Æ åBÆ æH Ø , P ł ª Iººa e ª ºE æÆÆ ØÆ: › ªaæ Ææª Å Iºª å Ø; u æ ºØa ŒÆd ˇ ØÆ æe a æƪfiø Æ; o ø ŒÆd o æe a Œøfiø Æ. 4. ÆæÆçÆ Å b B æƪfiø Æ ŒÆd Œøfiø Æ ƒ Kç (ŒÆ æÆ c ÅØ ›æH ŒÆ a c NŒ Æ çØ ƒ b I d H N ø ŒøfiøØd Kª ; ƒ b I d H KH æƪfiø،ƺØ; Øa e Çø ŒÆd K Ø
æÆ a åÆ Æ rÆØ ÆF Æ KŒ ø. Empirical or Inductive Approach (Po. 1449a7–b9) 5. e b s KØŒ E N ¼æÆ å Ø XÅ æƪfiø Æ E Y Ø ƒŒÆH j h; ÆP ŒÆŁ Æ e ŒæEÆØ ŒÆd æe a ŁÆ æÆ; ¼ºº º ª: ª Å s I IæåB ÆP å ØÆ ØŒB—ŒÆd ÆP c ŒÆd Œøfiø Æ; ŒÆd b Ie H KÆæå ø e ØŁæÆ ; b Ie H a çƺºØŒa L Ø ŒÆd F K ººÆE
H º ø ØÆ Ø ØÇ Æ—ŒÆ a ØŒæe ÅPŁÅ æƪ ø ‹ Kª ª çÆ æe ÆP B: ŒÆd ººa Æ ºa Æ ÆºFÆ æƪfiø Æ KÆÆ ; K d å c Æ B çØ. 6. ŒÆd H ŒæØ H ºBŁ K (e N æH `Nåº XªÆª ŒÆd a F åæF Mº
ø ŒÆd e º ª æø ƪøØ E Ææ Œ Æ : 59 Greek edition by Kassel (1965).
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
77
æ E b ŒÆd ŒÅªæÆç Æ çŒºB: Ø b e ª Ł: KŒ ØŒæH Łø ŒÆd º ø ª º Æ Øa e KŒ Æ ıæØŒF Æ Æº E Ołb I ŁÅ; æ KŒ æÆ æı NÆ E Kª : e b ªaæ æH æÆ æfiø KåæH Øa e Æ ıæØŒc ŒÆd OæåÅ ØŒø æÆ rÆØ c ÅØ; º ø b ª Å ÆP c çØ e NŒ E æ yæ : ºØ Æ ªaæ º Œ ØŒe H æø e NÆ E K Ø: Å E b ı; º E Æ ªaæ NÆ EÆ ºª K
fi B ØƺŒ fiø fi B æe Iºººı; ( æÆ b OºØªŒØ ŒÆd KŒ Æ B º Œ ØŒB ±æ Æ: Ø b K Ø ø ºŁÅ: ŒÆd a ¼ºº ‰ ŒÆ Æ ŒÅŁBÆØ ºª ÆØ ø E NæÅÆ: ºf ªaæ i Yø æª YÅ Ø ØÆØ ŒÆŁ ŒÆ . 7. ˙ b Œøfiø Æ K d u æ Y ÅØ çÆıº æø ; P Ø ŒÆ a AÆ ŒÆŒ Æ; Iººa F ÆNåæF K Ø e ª ºE æØ: e ªaæ ª ºE K Ø ±æ Å Ø ŒÆd Ærå Iı ŒÆd P çŁÆæ ØŒ ; x PŁf e ª ºE æ ø ÆNåæ Ø ŒÆd Ø æÆ ¼ ı OÅ: ƃ b s B
æƪfiø Æ Æ Ø ŒÆd Ø z Kª P º ºŁÆØ; b Œøfiø Æ Øa e c ıÇ ŁÆØ K IæåB ºÆŁ : ŒÆd ªaæ åæe ŒøfiøH Oł › ¼æåø øŒ ; Iºº KŁ º Æd qÆ: XÅ b åÆ ØÆ ÆP B KåÅ ƒ º ª Ø ÆP B ØÅ Æd Å ÆØ: b æ øÆ IøŒ j æº ªı j ºŁÅ ŒæØ H ŒÆd ‹Æ ØÆF Æ; Mª Å ÆØ: e b Łı Ø E ½ ¯ åÆæ ŒÆd * æØ e b K IæåB KŒ ØŒ º Æ qºŁ ; H b ŁÅØ ˚æ Å æH qæ Iç B NÆ ØŒB NÆ ŒÆŁ ºı Ø E º ªı ŒÆd Łı. Introduction 1. Because mimesis comes naturally to us, as do melody and rhythm (that metres are categories of rhythms is obvious), in the earliest times those with special natural talents for these things gradually progressed and brought poetry into being from improvisations. Theoretical or Deductive Approach (Po. 1448b24–1449a6) 2. Poetry branched into two, according to its creators’ characters: the more serious produced mimesis of noble actions and the actions of noble people, while the more vulgar depicted the actions of the base, in the Wrst place by composing invectives [psogoi] (just as others produced hymns and encomia). Now, we cannot name such an invective by any poet earlier than Homer, though probably many poets produced them; but we can do so from Homer onwards, namely the latter’s Margites and the like. In these poems, it was aptness which brought the iambic metre too into use—precisely why it is called ‘iambic’ now, because it was in this metre that they lampooned [iambizein] one another.
78
Ways of Seeing
3. Of the older poets some became composers of epic hexameters [heroikoi], others of iambic lampoons [iamboi]. Just as Homer was the supreme poet of elevated subjects (for he was preeminent not only in quality but also in composing dramatic mimesis), so too he was the Wrst to delineate the forms of comedy, by dramatizing not invective but the laughable: thus Margites stands in the same relation to comedies as do the Iliad and Odyssey to tragedies. 4. And when tragedy and comedy had been glimpsed, those whose own natures gave them an impetus towards either type of poetry abandoned iambic lampoons to become comic poets, or epic to become tragedians, because these newer forms were grander and more esteemed than the earlier. Empirical or Inductive Approach (Po. 1449a7–b9) 5. To consider whether tragedy is even now suYciently developed in its types—judging it both intrinsically and in relation to audiences—is a separate matter. Anyhow, when it came into being from an improvisatory origin (that is, both tragedy and comedy: the former from the leaders of dithyramb, the other from the leaders of the phallic songs which remain even now a custom in many cities), it was gradually enhanced as poets developed the potential they saw in it. And after going through many changes tragedy ceased to evolve, since it had achieved its own nature. 6. Aeschylus innovated by raising the number of actors from one to two, reduced the choral component, and made speech play the leading role. Three actors and scene painting came with Sophocles. A further factor was grandeur: after a period of [ek] slight plots and laughable diction, owing to development from a satyric ethos [ek satirikou], it was at a late stage that tragedy acquired dignity, and its metre became the iambic trimeter [iambeion] instead of the trochaic tetrameter. To begin with they used the tetrameter because the poetry was satyric and more associated with dancing; but when spoken dialogue was introduced, tragedy’s own nature discovered the appropriate metre. For the iambic trimeter, more than any other metre, has the rhythm of speech: an indication of this is that we speak many trimeters in conversation with one another, but hexameters only rarely and when diverging from the colloquial register. Further changes concerned the number of episodes. And we shall take as read the ways in which other features of tragedy are said to have been embellished: it would no doubt be a large task to discuss them individually. 7. Comedy, as we said, is mimesis of baser but not wholly vicious characters: rather, the laughable is one category of the shameful. For the
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
79
laughable comprises any fault or mark of shame which involves no pain or destruction: most obviously, the laughable mask is something ugly and twisted, but not painfully. Now, tragedy’s stages of development, and those responsible for them, have been remembered, but comedy’s early history was forgotten because no serious interest was taken in it: only at a rather late date did the archon grant a comic chorus; previously performers were volunteers. It is from a time when the genre already had some formal features that the Wrst named poets of comedy are remembered. Who introduced masks, prologues, various numbers of actors, and everything of that kind, has been lost. The composition of plots originally came from Sicily; of Athenian poets Crates was the Wrst to relinquish the iambic form [iambike idea]60 and to create stories and plots with an overall structure.61
For Aristotle knowledge is knowledge of causes (ÆN ÆØ).62 Hence, the account begins in no. 1 with a reference to the natural causes of the poetic art (ØÅ ØŒ), namely, that inclination to mimesis on the one hand, rhythm and harmony on the other, are naturally human.63 This summarizes the ‘anthropology of poetry’, to use Heath’s words, found at the beginning of chapter 4.64 The supernatural, in the form of divine inspiration, for example, is absent from Aristotle’s account.65 From causes in a philosophical sense Aristotle turns to causes in a historical sense, as a search for a link of causation between events, in the frame of a time-line.66 A vague point of departure is given by K IæåB, ‘from the beginning’.67 That early time appears as pre-historical in a sense, for improvisations are conceived as a step behind poetry proper. From this almost a-temporal starting-point development is explained through the action of individuals inclined to mimesis and rhythm, who gradually ‘begot’ poetry from 60 Halliwell (1995) has ‘manner’. Heath (1996), 9 oVers ‘the form of a lampoon’. 61 Translation of the Poetics by Halliwell (1995), 39–45. 62 Barnes (1982), 32. 63 Halliwell (1986), 71. Winkler (1990), 308 takes the two causes to be, ‘(1) the general human instinct for (and delight in) imitations and (2) the speciWc giftedness of certain individuals who are naturally talented in singing, dancing, and verbal performance’. 64 Heath (1996), 6. 65 Finkelberg (1998), 11. 66 References to causal explanation in Herodotus in Lateiner (1989), 189–205; Asheri (2007), 40 n. 96. 67 For the habit of seeking a ‘point of departure’, an Iæå, see a brief reference in Weil (1977), 205.
80
Ways of Seeing
improvisations. I use the term ‘beget’ (following Else)68 instead of ‘create’ in order to emphasize that Aristotle uses here vocabulary appropriate to the description of natural processes, such as ‘a man begets a man’.69 In this introductory statement we Wnd a conXation of two modes of explanation: through agents and through a chain of development, one out of the other. Let us now follow the two diVerent paths of Aristotle’s argument.
i. Theoretical or Deductive approach The Wrst stage of development (no. 2) is stated without specifying agents: poetry split up (Ø ŁÅ) into two branches according to the poets’ characters. To account for the diVerentiation between two broad branches of poetry Aristotle resorts to the second diVerentia for the theoretical classiWcation of poetry (chapter 2), that of character. This division of poetry by opposites is not demonstrated; it is a premiss valid for the whole process. It is compatible with the traditional form of argumentation through polarity;70 it applies social stratiWcation to the realm of poetry71 and, as we shall see, it coincides with the traditional classiWcation of poetry according to the categories of praise and blame. Axiomatic also is the assumption that, with respect to the characters of poets and their topics of composition, like goes with like, serious with serious, etc. Aristotle will go against this very principle when he later attributes to Homer responsibility for the development of both the serious and the comic genres. Similarly, Plato laid down in the Laws that only the morally superior poet should write about those deserving either praise or blame (829c, see sect. 5). The possibility of an ‘inferior’ poet composing psogos against superior characters was not considered an acceptable option by either Plato or Aristotle, notwithstanding available literary examples.72
68 Else (1957), 134–5. 69 Arist. PA 640a25–6. 70 Lloyd (1966). 71 Bal (1982) 178; Winkler (1990), 310. 72 The character of Thersites in the Iliad exempliWes the possibility of a base character blaming superior characters, cf. Nagy (1979), ch. 14; Rosen (2003); (2007a), 67–116.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
81
The history of poetry is constructed along a double genealogical path with poets’ characters corresponding to those of their subjects. Underlying the double development are the concepts of the ‘serious’ ( e ıÆE) and the ‘comic’ or the ‘laughable’ ( e ª ºE). Aristotle thus unfolds a schema in three stages: Wrst, psogoi and hymns and enkomia; second, heroic poetry and iamboi; third, comedy and tragedy. The genres appear to be discrete and pure forms, developing along two parallel lines. The theory can be schematically summarized in Table 3. Aristotle’s three-stage scheme of development, which appears to be broadly consistent with the Herodotean tripartite division of time according to degree of veriWability,73 has modern and contemporary history coinciding with the period of tragedy and comedy, a middle period of epic and iambic poetry, and an early period for which there is not much certainty.74 We Wnd a similar three-stage model at the opening of the Politics, with a development from household (rŒ), to village (ŒÅ), and Wnally city ( ºØ) (Pol. 1252a24–1253b34).75 The historical validity of this three-stage model of the evolution of society, which H. Main dubbed the ‘Patriarchal Theory’, has been called into question.76 Indeed, the model does not suit the foundation of cities, for example in colonization, a familiar enough procedure in Aristotle’s time, and one in which villages or cities came into being directly as settlements. The three-stage schema for the evolution of society is, therefore, logical rather than chronological, to use Table 3. Theoretical development of poetry according to Aristotle, Poetics 4
e ª ºE
e ıÆE
1 psogos 2 iamboi 3 comedy
hymnoi and enkomia epic poetry tragedy
73 Asheri (2007), 33 with further references. See also Cobet (2002). 74 For Aristotle’s distinction of historical periods, see Weil (1977), 210–11. On Herodotus’ tripartite division of time, see Asheri (2007), 33, with further references. 75 The succession individual, household, village, and city appears already in Plato, Lg. 626c–e, see Weil (1960), 327–39. 76 For criticism see Weil (1977), 212 with further references.
82
Ways of Seeing
Aristotle’s terms.77 Or, in Weil’s words ‘history is framed by theory’.78 Moreover, from the point of view of the telos, Aristotle says that the city was prior to both village and household ‘in nature’.79 Similarly, each branch of poetry had in itself from the very beginning the potentiality that was actualized in tragedy and comedy. Chronology is therefore subordinated to teleology.80 So, although the three-stage schema for the development of poetry is arranged in a chronological progression, it does not purport to be an account of how events happened. To be sure, there is no evidence to support the claim that poets went on to become komoidopoioi instead of iambopoioi. At any rate, Aristotle does not postulate a development of comedy out of iamboi,81 but rather a progression in which poets devote themselves to new forms.82 The reference to the Margites: Iºª å Ø, oVers a clue to the interrelation of the elements in this theory: the Homeric poems are ‘in proportion’ to tragedy as Margites is ‘in proportion’ to comedy:83 Margites Comedy
:
Iliad=Odyssey Tragedy
There is a conceptual aYnity between the Margites and comedy, and between the Iliad and the Odyssey and tragedy. There is no emergence of one ‘out of ’ the other. Thus this Wrst section of the history of poetry is based on analogy. Epic and iambic poetry are conceptual predecessors of tragedy and comedy. 77 PA 640a: fiH º ªfiø vs. fiH åæ fiø. 78 Weil (1977), 212. 79 æ
æ b fi B ç Ø ºØ j NŒ Æ ŒÆd ŒÆ H K Ø: e ªaæ ‹º æ
æ IƪŒÆE rÆØ F æı (Arist. Pol. 1253a9–20). 80 For the paradox of progress and teleology in Aristotle’s history of constitutions, see Weil (1977), 209–10. 81 On the topic of iambos and comedy, see: West (1974), 37; Rosen (1988a); Degani (1988b); Henderson (1991), 1–29; Lee (1993); Kugelmeier (1996), 163–94; Zanetto (2001); Kantzios (2005), 151–61. Bowie’s comparison of length, audiences, performers, mode of performance, and use of narrative in both genres makes clear that derivation of comedy from iambic poetry cannot be taken for granted (Bowie (2002a), 48–9). 82 Kantzios (2005), 161 explains the iambos’ losing its dual nature (scurrilous on the one hand, contemplative and gnomic on the other) through the hypothesis of poets’ shifting poetic allegiance as they saw the possibilities of the new dramatic genres. 83 LSJ s.v. Iºª 1 and 4.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
83
ii. Empirical or Inductive approach The second section of the history of poetry (5, 6, and 7) goes back to the beginning (no. 1) and links the initial improvisations directly to tragedy and comedy. Rather than by analogy, the second section explains the development of poetic genres for the most part through historical facts, pointing out the actions of speciWc poets and the eVect of civic institutions. Genres are not discrete, but seen in a process of gradual change, towards the telos of tragedy and comedy.84 Aristotle uses a biological metaphor (cf. ÅPŁÅ) to explain the development of genres.85 This is presented as the creation of something new ‘out of ’ (KŒ and I ) something previously existing, with simultaneous continuity and transformation. However, the biological metaphor works only to a certain extent. Analogy with life would conclude in death, that is, the disappearance of a genre or institution, perhaps absorbed into a new one, whereas Aristotle says that tragedy ceased to change once it reached its own nature. The teleological approach to the history of poetry limits the explanatory power of the analogy with living beings. Biology would suggest a pattern of rise and decline, while teleology provides an end to the process precisely when it reaches its acme. In no. 5 Aristotle Wnds the predecessors of tragedy and comedy in those who led the singing and dancing of the dithyramb and the phallic songs.86 The issue of the origins of the dramatic genres is beyond the scope of this work. It should be noted, though, that the 84 Else (1957), 201 speaks of an entelechic structure in the account of the development of both tragedy and comedy, which he sums up as Iæå---ÆhåÅØ--- º (cf. Arist. SE 183b17–184b8). 85 Aristotle describes the process of formation (ª Ø) of an organism until it reaches its nature (çØ) in terms similar to those found in his biological works, Lanza (1983), 63. Ford (2002), 264–5 refers to ch. 4 of the Poetics as a ‘natural history of poetry’. 86 The manuscript tradition gives çÆߺºØŒa at 1449a11–12, a çƺºØŒ is found only in one 15th-cent. manuscript, Parisinus 2038. Else (1986), 97 warns that it is a Renaissance conjecture. Leonhardt (1991), 18–27 suggests a chiastic reading of the reference to dithyramb and phallic songs, connecting tragedy with phallic songs and comedy with dithyramb. This reading was strongly rejected by Seaford (1993).
84
Ways of Seeing
historical validity of Aristotle’s statements can and has been called into question.87 We, however, are interested in his modality of explanation rather than the validity of this explanation. By singling out the ÆæåØ as the element out of which tragedy and comedy developed, Aristotle focuses on the origins of the acting roles. This is consistent with his preference for dialogue over choral components. Moreover, in order to provide the historical predecessors of tragedy and comedy Aristotle focuses on contemporary civic and ritual performances. The dithyrambos, a choral genre performed at festivals in Athens and beyond, was in Athens a well-established category of competition involving hundreds of citizens, men and boys.88 It was not only a genre but an institution funded by prominent citizens.89 Phallic songs were performed during processions at Dionysiac festivals, where participants carried big phalloi. Largely improvised, they were probably scurrilous, at times involving the exchange of abuse between participants in the procession or between participants and bystanders (the hypothesis of the origins of the iambic metre may go back to such a practice, see below).90 Aristotle explicitly states that phallic songs were still customary in many Greek cities, and dithyrambs were still performed during his lifetime. Therefore, even if the reconstruction of the link between elements is partly hypothetical, it is based on what Aristotle could have witnessed in person. He may well be retrojecting tragedy and comedy into extant phenomena of which he had Wrst-hand knowledge. In no. 6 Aristotle refers to the internal development of tragedy as a genre, and the contribution of historical poets to the number of actors, the scenography, etc. He expands on the size, language, and metre of early, ‘premature’ tragedy: at an early stage it comprised short plots, comic diction, and the use of trochaic tetrameter,91 87 Pickard-Cambridge in DTC 2, 94–7, 133–4 argued that Aristotle was theorizing on this point. Rusten (2006) sets Aristotle’s theory in a broader discussion of literary, epigraphical, and visual evidence on the origins of comedy. 88 See Fearn (2007), 163–225 for a comprehensive survey of scholarship on the dithyramb. The articles collected by Kowalzig and Wilson (forthcoming) situate the genre in its broad religious, social, and cultural context. 89 Namely, the choregia, comprehensively studied by Wilson (2000). 90 Fluck (1931); Henderson (1991), 16; Leonhardt (1991), 29–30. 91 Aristotle poses a double paradox. Iambic metre, the metre typically used in Greek iambos, in which abuse and rude language are perceived as dominant, had been
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
85
because of its origins ‘out of satyric performances’. This type of tragedy with humorous diction strikingly deWes the theoretical distinction between serious and comic poetry. We must conclude that, unlike the Theoretical Approach, the Empirical one is not strictly binary. It allows for gradual change (cf. ººa Æ ºa Æ ÆºFÆ; Æ Æº E) and intermediate stages in the development of genres that, like early ‘satyric’ tragedy, appear as mixed forms.92 In no. 6 we Wnd a reference to iambics as the metre more appropriate for dialogue. Underlying this ‘iambizein one another’ seems to be a hypothesis of development from improvised mutual abuse. We shall return to this in section 6.i. No. 7 suggests that Aristotle may be following written records when he says that tragedy’s changes were remembered whereas comedy’s were forgotten (1449a37–b1). Thus, although we cannot tell where the border lies between documentation and inference, primary sources and autopsy are at the base of at least part of the information provided.93 Aristotle also refers to the Archon’s role in granting choruses. This further enhances the impression that much of what appears to be factual in Aristotle’s history of poetry relies on oYcial records. To be sure, Aristotle and his school were actively involved in collecting oYcial records of musical performances.94 It is therefore not surprising that primary sources provide the basis of at least part of the argument. Perhaps what we have here is a history of institutions rather than of genres.95
in use for more than a century for representing dialogue in Attic drama, with no association to abuse and rude language. However, the trochaic tetrameter, used by Archilochus also for serious poems, is perceived here and elsewhere in the Poetics as more licentious. Either the gap in evidence is too wide to be bridged, or Aristotle’s perception of dominant features does not apply to the archaic period. 92 On ‘gradualism’ in this section of Aristotle’s account, and the hypothesis of an early satyric tragedy, see Winkler (1990), 313–14. Cf. Seaford (1984), 10–11. On Aristotle’s pattern of evolution from small beginnings, see Else (1986), 91 with further references. 93 On Aristotle’s use of textual and archaeological evidence, see Huxley (1973). 94 The titles of three of Aristotle’s books, ˝EŒÆØ ˜ØıØÆŒÆ , — æd æƪfiøØH, and ˜Øƌƺ ÆØ, recorded by Diogenes Laertius (5.26) evidence Aristotle’s appreciation of the value of public records for literary history (cf. Weil (1960), 137–9). 95 See Rotstein (2004) for a similar distinction between institutions (i.e. categories of competition at public festivals) and literary genres in Po. 1447a13–16.
86
Ways of Seeing
iii. Iambos in Aristotle’s history of poetry Two main methods of acquiring knowledge are apparent from Aristotle’s historical account. One is his own reasoning on how events must have been. This is evident in his reference to the probability that there were many pre-Homeric authors of psogoi, although he cannot name one. Another method consists in using Wrst hand knowledge from documentation and personal experience. This is evident from Aristotle’s reference to the availability of information for the history of tragedy. These methods coincide with those mentioned by Herodotus in his meta-historical statements, namely reasoning or judgement (ªÅ) and autopsy (ZłØ) (Hdt. 1.1.0, 2.99.1).96 The historical methods, needless to say, are combined with philosophical ones, but only the latter have so far received adequate scholarly attention. The Theoretical Approach to the history of poetry is based on the axiomatic division of poetry into two branches, a dichotomy that only partly underlies the Empirical Approach. The Theoretical Approach, moreover, seems to deal with almost ideal literary forms, while the Empirical takes into account the institutional character of actual forms of Greek poetry. Both approaches are teleological. Both involve a concept of progress from improvisation towards stable literary forms. The Theoretical Approach, however, is highly speculative. It involves, as we shall see in section 5, the appropriation of rhetorical terminology for deWning two major Welds of poetic discourse97 as a hypothetical pre-Homeric stage. The Empirical Approach, on the contrary, refers to speciWc known phenomena and to availability or lack of information. The schematic nature of the Theoretical Approach, with its characteristic three-stage development, does not allow for mixed forms, unlike the Empirical Approach, which allows for tragedy with comic diction and for internal evolution within genres. 96 Lloyd (1975), 77–89; Lateiner (1989), 190–1, 199, 224–5; Luraghi (2006); Asheri (2007), 8, 15. Incidentally, the digression in ch. 3 of the Poetics regarding Dorian claims for the origins of drama, contains hints of contesting local traditions, which may be described as compatible with Herotodus’ IŒ, ‘hearsay’ or ‘inquiry’. 97 Or we could say, using Bakhtin’s terms, two types of ‘speech genres’, Bakhtin (1986).
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
87
Each of the two approaches involves diVerent notions of antecedents or literary predecessors.98 In the theoretical approach epic poetry and iambos are ‘conceptual’ (‘similar to’) predecessors of tragedy and comedy. In the empirical approach dithyramb and phallic songs are ‘historical’ (‘out of which’) forerunners of tragedy and comedy. This is a crucial distinction for understanding the place of iambos in Aristotle’s history of poetry. In the theoretical approach, iamboi appear as the conceptual (similar to but not deriving from) consequent of psogoi, which I argue is Aristotle’s construct, and the conceptual forerunner of comedy. In the empirical approach, iamboi are not mentioned as a stage preceding comedy, and there is no indication that they should be equated to phallic songs. To be sure, Aristotle does not say that comedy develops from iamboi99 but that comedy develops out of the leaders of the phallic songs; he also links comedy to the ŒH. Of course, one is bound to Wnd similarities among iamboi, phallic songs, and komoi, particularly cheerful scurrility and abuse of speciWc targets. However, they are neither equivalent nor interchangeable. Aristotle’s conceptualization of iambos is consistent with the two diVerent approaches to the history of poetry. Consequently, iambos has a twofold status in Aristotle’s understanding of the development of Greek poetic genres. In conceptual terms, iambos belongs to the broad group of humorous poetry ( e ª ºE).100 In historical, evaluative terms, Aristotle presents iambos as a genre of the past that was superseded by what he considers a superior genre, comedy. This is presented as a poets’ choice of comedy instead of iamboi,due to comedy’s components being bigger and more valued (Øa e Çø ŒÆd K Ø
æÆ a åÆ Æ). This view of iamboi as superseded by comedy had a strong impact on later scholarship on the genre, and perhaps also aVected the transmission of post-archaic iambic poetry.
98 Rusten’s elegant diagram of the origins of comedy and tragedy in Aristotle’s Poetics illustrates the perception of origins of tragedy and comedy in the fusion of Dionysiac ritual poetry (dithyramb and phallic songs) with literary poetry (epic and iambos) (Rusten (2006), 39–40). Rusten, however, combines the two theories in one account. 99 Bowie (2002a), 48–9. 100 Rosen (2007a), 32–40. For a survey of ancient testimonies on the laughable, see Grant (1924).
88
Ways of Seeing
However, in my analysis of the evidence for establishing the corpus of iambic poetry (Chapter 2, sect. 2) I showed that there was continuity in the production and performance of iambic poetry from the seventh to the end of the fourth century bce. Furthermore, some comic poets were also known as authors of iamboi (Hermippus, Susarion, and Diphilus). Rather than an accurate map of the poetic landscape of his time, Aristotle’s view of comedy’s taking over iambos is a result of his teleological view of the history of poetry. It reXects a perception of the status of iambos, and the fact that its heyday was considered to be already past and gone. Now that we have considered the status of iambos in Aristotle’s view of the development of poetry, we can go on to deal in more detail with his various speciWc comments about the genre.
5 . PSOGOI A N D I A MB O I In the comic branch of poetry iamboi appear as the conceptual continuation of psogos (nos. 2 and 3). What do psogoi mean in this section of Aristotle’s Poetics, and how do they relate to iamboi? To answer this question let us look in more detail at the theoretical approach to literary history. In the Wrst stage (no. 2) we Wnd a division of poetry into psogoi on the one hand, and hymns and enkomia on the other. This polarity is concomitant with the two basic categories of invective and laudatory poetry, which play a role in many societies. Indeed, in those traditional societies which anthropologists call ‘shame-cultures’,101 praise and blame provide public sanction of approval and disapproval for people’s actions. In communities where reputation is paramount praise and blame can shape public opinion. Poetry is often an important vehicle for expressing this public sanction. Detienne, Nagy, and Gentili have
101 Cairns (1993), 1–47 surveys the conceptualization of shame and guilt in anthropological studies, and revises the applicability of the notion of ‘shame-culture’ to ancient Greece.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
89
convincingly argued that the polarity ‘praise poetry—blame poetry’ is a fundamental institution of archaic Greece.102 Nagy is eloquent: As we see from Georges Dume´zil’s comparative study Servius et la Fortune,103 Indo-European society operated on the principle of counterbalancing praise and blame, primarily through the medium of poetry. This state of aVairs is most overtly preserved in the evidence of Indic and Old Irish, but we must now also include Greek.104 Thanks to the brilliant synthesis of Marcel Detienne, we are in a position to see the opposition of praise and blame as a fundamental principle in the archaic Greek community.105
Aristotle takes the traditional categories of praise and blame as an a priori criterion and builds on them in a rather original way. He matches the binary classiWcation with historical poetic genres, both synchronically, referring to poetic forms that were well known in his own time, and diachronically, searching for antecedents in the past. In this way the polarity of praise and blame is rendered dynamic, and helps to account for a historical process.106
102 On Greek ‘praise poetry’ and ‘blame poetry’, see Ward (1973); Detienne (1973), 16–27; Nagy (1979), 222–42; Gentili (1988a), 107–14. For praise as a sympotic practice crossing the various genres of archaic poetry, see Bowie (2002b). 103 Dume´zil (1943), 16–27. 104 In his article on blame poetry in the Indo-European poetic tradition Ward (1973) includes Greek evidence, mainly iambic poetry. 105 Nagy (1979), 222. Both Detienne (1973), 45 and Nagy (1979), 222 adduce the traditional role of praise and blame in ancient Greek society from Plutarch’s Lycurgus (8, 14, 25). According to Plutarch, one of the consequences of Lycurgus’ redistribution of land was that people were distinguished only by the results of blame (ÆNåæH ł ª) and of praise (ŒÆºH ÆØ), i.e. by their reputations (Plu. Lyc. 8.3–4). Elderly Spartans, Plutarch reports, used to spend their leisure in public gatherings, praising good actions or blaming bad ones. Plutarch adds that they did so with jests and laughter, which easily led to admonition and correction (Plu. Lyc. 25.2). A similar educational role of blame through mockery Wgures in a public spectacle performed by young women, who also praised in song those who deserved it (Plu. Lyc. 14.3). The result of this public practice, so Plutarch concludes, is not less eVective than serious rebuke. It is, however, diYcult to assess to what extent Plutarch can be trusted, or whether his description of the way in which praise and blame were articulated in Sparta through song and laughter was the result of idealization. 106 A range of Greek terms expresses the concepts of praise and blame. For ‘praise’ Nagy (1976), 195 and Gentili (1988a), 108 mention Œº, Ær, ÆØ. In addition to ÆN E and KÆØ E some other verbs can be used metaphorically, such as Œ E, çÆF, and Iå ŁÆØ. The concept of ‘blame’ can be expressed by Z Ø, H, EŒ, æØ, åŁ, çŁ (Nagy), ºº, ºØæ Æ, ª ºE, and the verbs
90
Ways of Seeing
In speaking of blame poetry, the works of archaic iambographers are, of course, the prominent examples in scholarly literature.107 However, it is not always clear from the use of terms whether iambos is an instance of psogos, the main literary representative of psogos, coextensive with psogos, or simply a genre that can make use of psogos. On occasions psogos and iambos seem to be taken as referring to one and the same thing.108 Therefore, in order to grasp the relation between iamboi and psogoi in the Poetics, I shall now focus on the three terms Aristotle uses for the categories of praise and blame.109 In Plato and Aristotle ł ª; ÆØ, and their cognates appear very often as a pair in a variety of contexts. The sense of moral sanction through public opinion underlies the general meaning of approval and disapproval (as it does, for example, in the opening paragraph of Gorgias’ Enkomion to Helen). Most speciWcally, in Aristotle’s ethical writings psogos and epainos apply to voluntary actions (EN 1109b30–1; 1110a31–b1), connected in this way to the issues of will and responsibility. In Plato’s Laws we Wnd that praise çÆØ, Œ æ E, ºØæ E, غºÆ Ø, ØÆæ Ø, (ºŒ Ø (Gentili). The variety demonstrates, according to Gentili, the complexity of the psogos category. 107 The most prominent example of praise poetry in Greek literature is the Pindaric ode, and of blame poetry, the works of the archaic iambographers. In addition, Nagy (1979), 253–64 and Rosen (2007a), 67–78, among others, have shown that the Homeric epic poems, although mostly concerned with the actions of heroes and warriors, also display traces of blame poetry. 108 ‘Clearly, the primary function of the Archilochean YÆ Ø was invective, and their primary target was Lycambes and his daughters’ (Nagy (1976), 191); ‘this Hellenic form of invective, the YÆ Ø’ (p. 194); ‘the ł ªØ of Archilochus about Lykambes’ (p. 196). ‘In sum, the YÆ Ø of Archilochus against ¸ıŒ Å and family are a special case of invective’ (p. 199). From Nagy’s use of the terms in his 1976 article it appears that psogos is a general category, iambos a sub-category of psogos, and Archilochus’ poems against Lycambes an instance of both iambos (sub-category) and psogos (category). Gentili (1988a) reverses the relationship between iambos and psogos: ‘The variety and complexity of the pso´gos category can be further documented by the vast number of synonyms used in referring to it: moˆmos, o´neidos, phtho´nos, e´ris, neıˆkos, me´mphomai, diasy´ro, helky´o, sı´llos, sillaı´no, e´chthos, loidorı´a, geloıˆon, and so forth. These all come under the general category of ´ıambos-iambizein’ (p. 108). Thus both iambos and psogos are held to be the general category. A similar approach is adopted in interpretations of ch. 4 of the Poetics, for example in Lucas’s comments: ‘though not all ł ªØ need have been in iambics, YÆ Ø and ł ªØ in this passage are not to be distinguished’ (Lucas (1968), 76, where iamboi are taken as a synonym of iambeion); ‘ł ªØ and YÆ Ø are essentially the same’ (p. 78). 109 For a survey of terms, see Rotstein (2002), 241–55.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
91
and blame have an educational role.110 They are exercised in those areas where custom rather than written laws is in force (788a, 793a V., 822d–e). Moreover, praise and blame can be prescribed by the lawgiver (631e–632a; 727c). For example, for a resident alien who helps or fails to help a parent beaten by his/her child, Plato stipulates praise or blame to be granted as prize or penalty (881c). Indeed, Plato maintains that praise and blame can sometimes be more eVective than the law itself (730b), a penalty heavier than an exorbitant Wne (926d). In two passages of Plato’s Laws we Wnd that praise and blame were conceived as capable of taking poetic form and as such part of the city’s musical institutions.111 In the Wrst passage (Lg. 829b–e)112 Plato prescribes monthly festivals, including sacriWces, processions, and games. He may be modelling the festival on real Spartan traditions, in which both dance and gymnastic competitions contributed to martial training. Plato stipulates that prizes are to be allocated at these festivals, and the participants are to perform enkomia and psogoi to each other (KªŒØ ŒÆd ł ªı Ø E IºººØ), bringing out the character displayed by
110 A role similar to the one we Wnd later in Plutarch’s Lycurgus. Detienne (1973), 154 n. 40 argues that praise and blame play an important role precisely in works that display archaic and Doric inXuences. Calame (2001), 223 and n. 59 Wnds that the educational role of the chorus in Plato’s Laws appears to be based on the Cretan and Lacedaemonian practice. 111 On Plato’s conception of criticism emerging from the legislation of festivals in the Laws, see Ford (2002), 282–6. 112 ŒÆ ØÆ I d ÆØØa ÅåÆAŁÆØ ŒÆºa –Æ Łı ÆØ; ‹ø i ª ªø ÆØ åÆØ
Øb (æ Æ ØŒÆ ; Ø ÆØ a º ØŒa ‹ Ø ºØ Æ KÆæªH åÆ: ،ŠæØÆ b ŒÆd IæØ EÆ (Œ ØØ ø E ØÆ Ø KªŒØ ŒÆd ł ªı Ø E IºººØ; ›E Ø i ŒÆ ª ªÅ ÆØ ŒÆ f IªHÆ K Æ Æs fiH fiø; ¼æØ ŒF Æ rÆØ ŒF Æ ŒÆd e c łª Æ. ØÅ c b ø H
Ø ø c –Æ; Iººa ª ªg æH b c ºÆ
Œ Æ K H; Å Æs
H › Ø ÅØ b ŒÆd FÆ ƒŒÆH Œ Œ ÅØ K Æ E NØ; ŒÆºe b æª ŒÆd KØçÆb Åb æÆ : ‹Ø b IªÆŁ ÆP d ŒÆd ØØ K fi B º Ø; æªø Z ÅØıæªd ŒÆºH, a H Ø øfi IŁø ØÆ Æ; Ka ŒÆd c ıØŒa çŒfi Å. Œæ Ø b ÆP H ø Ææ fiH ÆØ ı fi B ŒÆd E ¼ººØ çºÆØ; F IØ ø ÆP E ªæÆ, ÆææÅ Æ KÆØ rÆØ Ø; E b ¼ººØ Å Æ Kı Æ ª ª ŁÆØ; Å ØÆ ºA fi ¼ Ø I ŒØ FÆ c ŒæØ ø H çıºŒø; Å i ø fi q H ¨Ææı ŒÆd ˇæç ø oø; Iºº ‹Æ ƒ æa ŒæØŁ Æ ØÆ Æ K ŁÅ E Ł E; ŒÆd ‹Æ IªÆŁH Z ø IæH łª Æ j KÆØF ØÆ KŒæ ŁÅ æ ø æA e ØF (Pl. Lg. 829b–e).
92
Ways of Seeing
the participants in the contests and in their life in general. Plato prescribes that the authors of these compositions should be more than 50 years old and have a record of good actions. The Wnal decision about which compositions are to be performed at the festival is in the lawgiver’s jurisdiction. Thus in Plato’s Laws the poetic psogoi and enkomia are strictly regimented, as they are to be composed and approved before the festival takes place. The poetic compositions (ØÆ Æ), Plato insists, are to be sung even if they are not harmonious. It seems that he envisaged that psogoi and enkomia would be performed by trained choruses. A second passage of the Laws (957c–d) lays down that the written law must serve as a clear test for all sciences and particularly for the judgement of literary works.113 Plato here uses the word º ªØ to comprise a variety of compositions, epainoi and psogoi in metre or in prose (‹Ø K ØÆØ ÆØØ ŒÆd ł ªØ æ Øø ºª ÆØ ŒÆd ‹Ø ŒÆ ƺªÅ), either written or uttered orally in situations of dispute. Here epainoi and psogoi embrace a whole range of literary compositions, regardless of diVerences in form, medium, purpose, and circumstance of performance. In the above two passages Plato uses the terms psogos and epainos for compositions about speciWc individuals that may be either in verse or in prose (957c–d) and that can be sung by choruses (829b–e). They are deWned not by virtue of formal features or features of performance but by their overall function of approval or disapproval. In this sense, formal distinctions that usually play a role in the classiWcation of genres appear to be irrelevant. In Plato’s usage psogoi and epainoi can embrace a range of genres, deWning two broad Welds in the realm of poetic expression. This broad meaning underlies Aristotle’s use of psogos in no. 2. 113 æe L Æ åæc e ºº Æ ØŒÆ c Y ŁÆØ ŒÆ a ŒÅ º Ø ŒÆd Œ Œ Å ªæÆ Æ ÆP H æØ ÆŁ Ø: ø ªaæ ÆŁÅ ø ŒıæØ Æ Æ F
e ÆŁ Æ º ø ª ª ŁÆØ a æd f ı Œ Æ; Y æ OæŁH YÅ Ł Æ; ª ªØ ¼; j Å hÆ fiH æBŒ Œ Œ fi B i › Ł E E ŒÆd ŁÆıÆ e : ŒÆd c ŒÆd H ¼ººø º ªø ‹Ø K ØÆØ ÆØØ ŒÆd ł ªØ æ Øø ºª ÆØ ŒÆd ‹Ø ŒÆ ƺªÅ; Y K ªæÆØ Y ŒÆŁ æÆ K ÆE ¼ººÆØ ÆØ ıı ÆØ Øa çغ، Æ IçØ Å F ÆØ ŒÆd Øa ıªåøæ ø Ø ‹ ŒÆd ºÆ Æ Æ ø; ø ø i Æ YÅ Æçc a F Ł ı ªæÆ Æ . . . (Pl. Lg. 957c–d).
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
93
However, epainos and psogos do not exhaust the sphere of praise and blame. At the Wrst of Plato’s passages (829e) we Wnd that together with psogoi and epainoi directed towards people, there are poems dedicated to the gods (ƒ æa ØÆ Æ E Ł E).114 This distinction by addressee appears also in the Republic: hymns for the gods and enkomia for men (Pl. R. 607a; cf. Et. Gud. s.v. o).115 Now enkomion can also be used in a poetic sense. The composition of the word implies that the original occasion was a revel-song.116 Pindar used the word in this sense when he referred to rather informal, extemporaneous victory songs.117 In a passage of the Ion that I discuss in Chapter 7, section 2.iii, Plato mentions enkomia among other genres performed on public or semi-public occasions: the dithyrambos, hyporchema, epos, and iambos (Ion 534c). ‘Hymns to the gods’ and ‘enkomia to good men’ are the two general types of poetry that in the Republic Plato allows to be performed in the city.118 Thus it is the type of addressee, divine or human, that distinguishes in general ‘hymns’ from ‘enkomia’, when the two are mentioned together. Thus ‘hymns’ and ‘enkomia’ are categories covering two poles of praise songs that we may characterize as religious and secular. Aristotle uses the terms in a similar way in no. 2. Beyond the strictly poetic realm, the terms psogoi and enkomia can be used in a technical sense. To be sure, Aristotle consistently opposes two rhetorical terms, ‘enkomion’ and ‘epainos’, to ‘psogoi’, and the three are technical terms often used in classical rhetorical art. In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, psogos and epainos constitute the two categories of the epideictic speech.119 At the same time they can appear in prooimia of epideictic speeches.120 Therefore, psogos and 114 ‹Æ ƒ æa ŒæØŁ Æ ØÆ Æ K ŁÅ E Ł E; ŒÆd ‹Æ IªÆŁH Z ø IæH łª Æ j KÆØF ØÆ KŒæ ŁÅ æ ø æA e ØF (Pl. Lg. 829e). 115 Ford (2002), 259. 116 Lowe (2007), 168. 117 Heath (1988); Lowe (2007), 168. 118 oı Ł E ŒÆd KªŒØÆ E IªÆŁE Ø ø ÆæÆ Œ N ºØ (Pl. R. 607a). 119 KØ ØŒ ØŒF b e b ÆØ e b ł ª (Arist. Rh. 1358b12–13; cf. 1367a34, 1368a33–7, 1408b14, 1414b30, 1415a6). 120 ºª ÆØ b a H KØ ØŒ ØŒH æ ØÆ K KÆ ı j ł ªı; a b s H KØ ØŒ ØŒH º ªø æ ØÆ KŒ ø; K KÆ ı; KŒ ł ªı . . . (Arist. Rh. 1414b31; 1415a6).
94
Ways of Seeing
epainos may correspond either to the overall eVect of a speech or to a single section of it. As for enkomia, Aristotle in the Rhetoric occasionally uses the term KªŒØ as an alternative to ÆØ (Rh. 1368a35–6).121 As Harvey pointed out, in Plato’s and Aristotle’s times KªŒØ was used ‘as a term of rhetoric to denote an extended eulogy, whether in prose or verse’.122 Unlike psogoi and enkomia, which have a general meaning, a rhetorical and a poetic one, ‘hymn’ has exclusively a poetic meaning. Although in Homer a ‘hymn’ is any song, whether secular or sacred,123 the classical period attests more restricted uses of the term.124 More speciWcally, in Aeschylus and Plato ‘hymns’ are songs addressed to either gods or heroes (A. Th. 868; Pers. 620, 625 f.; Ch. 475; Pl. Lg. 801d). Plato, however, most often employs the term for songs in honour of gods (Lg. 700b, referring to the pure generic forms of the past; cf. R. 607a; Symp. 177a).125 In contrast to other types of songs that were addressed to speciWc gods or sung at speciWc occasions, such as the dithyramb, the paean, and the iobakchos, the ‘hymn’ can be deWned as a default term for a religious song.126 Let us bring together what we have seen about the terms psogoi, hymns, and enkomia. They are traditional labels for two broad types of utterance common in Greek societies. Most speciWcally, they can apply to verbal compositions, including poetic compositions. Whereas hymns are a type of song, enkomia and psogos are used both as types of songs as well as types of discourse codiWed by 121 Whereas ÆØ is used for praise in a general sense, Aristotle makes an explicit, technical distinction between ÆØ and KªŒØ: ÆØ is the praise of virtue and KªŒØ is the praise of actions (EE 1219b; Rh. 1367b28–32). The term Z Ø is used as an alternative to ł ª (Rh. 1368a35–6; 1374a22). In contrast, Anaximenes consistently uses as a Wxed pair ł ªØ and KªŒØÆ (Rh. ad Alex. 3.5.4; 3.14.6; 6.2.3). He also refers to ÆØØ (p. 61.11; p. 77.8; p. 81.6 Fuhrmann). 122 Harvey (1955), 163; Lowe (2007), 168. This is the sense we Wnd in the Rhetoric (1366a), where one of the main forms of the epideictic genre is deWned as KªŒøØÆ ØŒ . 123 Smyth (1906), p. xxvii. 124 Aeschylus uses ‘hymn’ for the Eumenides’ song (Eum. 336); Sophocles, for a wedding song (Antig. 815); and Aristophanes, for a mourning song (Av. 210). 125 Lg. 700b1–2: Ø q r fiTB PåÆd æe Ł ; ZÆ b oØ K ŒÆºF . Cf. Harvey (1955), 165. 126 See Furley and Bremer (2001), 10–11 and Ford (2002), 12, with further references.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
95
professional rhetoricians. Plato distinguishes between poems dedicated to the gods (hymns) and compositions, in prose or verse, about people (psogoi, epainoi, enkomia). In his own reference to psogoi, hymns, and enkomia, Aristotle seems to be using a similar scheme of classiWcation in which function is a primary deWning feature, type of addressee a secondary one, whereas features of form are left aside.127 In sum, the term psogoi refers to verbal expressions of disapproval, whereas hymns and enkomia cover the religious and secular aspects of praise poetry. Neither invective nor praise are literary genres per se, but both are employed by diVerent genres, in poetry as well as in prose, and in contexts as diVerent as festivals, symposia, and the court. In addition, Aristotle himself elsewhere applies the rhetorical terms psogos and enkomia to entire speeches or sections of them, according to their overall eVect of approval or disapproval. It seems, therefore, that Aristotle also appropriates the technical use of terms from the art of rhetoric and adapts them to the history of poetry, in order to deWne two major Welds of poetic discourse as an hypothesis of the pre-Homeric stage in the development of poetry.128 In chapter 4 of the Poetics the terms ł ªØ; oØ, and KªŒØÆ are not used as literary genres in a strict sense, but as broad categories or macro-genres. This use has antecedents in Plato and is inXuenced by rhetorical theory. As for psogos, in Poetics 4 the term covers the broad, traditional category of blame poetry, with the further speciWcation that it is composed by inferior poets in order to represent inferior subjects. Although the function of disapproval is dominant, a comic function is implicit from the very form of the classiWcation. Psogoi do not correspond to any literary genre. Nor does Aristotle explicitly 127 Aristotle changes Plato’s primary principle of classiWcation by addressee into character (of poet/subject), as the following table shows: Plato: by addressee to gods Aristotle: by character
superior
oØ
inferior
128 Else (1986), 89; Winkler (1990), 314–15.
to men KªŒØÆ ÆØ ł ªØ
96
Ways of Seeing
identify psogos and iambos, but he sets them in the same line of development by conceptual aYnity. In addition, the Rhetoric shows that praise and blame can be conceived either as two categories according to the overall eVect of the speech or as an element that can be present in some part of a speech, e.g. prooimia. We can now distinguish between the diVerent possible ways of understanding psogos available to Aristotle and his audience: 1. as the act of verbal rebuke, i.e. a speech act; 2. as a broad category that comprises various literary genres, i.e. a macro-genre (Pl. Lg.); 3. as a rhetorical category, deWned according to function (Arist. Rh.); 4. as the overall eVect of a poem or speech according to their function (Arist. Rh.); 5. as an element that appears in a section of a poem or a speech (Arist. Rh.). In Aristotle’s history of poetry psogoi are to be understood as no. 2 of the list above, while the examples he cites in the Rhetoric with which we began this chapter, exemplify no. 3. How are iamboi and psogoi related in Aristotle’s Poetics, in view of the diVerent possible meanings of psogoi? Iamboi and psogoi are not interchangeable terms. Some (poetic) ł ªØ are also YÆ Ø and conversely, some YÆ Ø can be said to be also ł ªØ by virtue of the overall eVect. In addition, one can say that some YÆ Ø make use of ł ª (as a component, in part of the poem). Let us look at this in a graphic form. 1. Some psogoi are iamboi (that is to say, psogos as a macro-genre includes iambos as a genre) by virtue of their overall eVect. It is implied that psogoi can appear in other genres.
psogoi
iamboi
Fig. 2. Some psogoi are iamboi.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
97
2. Iambos as a genre (the ‘received iambos’) includes poems of abuse and in this sense some iamboi are psogoi (or, iambos as a literary genre includes psogos as a sub-category).
iamboi
psogoi
Fig. 3. Some iamboi are psogoi.
3. Poems termed iamboi sometimes include sections that display abuse. In this sense, some iamboi (as iambic poems) include psogoi (as component of poems).
iamboi
psogoi
Fig. 4. Some iamboi make use of psogos.
Poems can achieve the overall eVect of criticism, blame, or vituperation in a variety of ways.129 A poem can speak about named individuals, it can let a character in the poem speak about them, it can address an individual or impersonate him, that is to say, let him be a character of the poem and speak or act in a shameful way. These diVerent forms of abuse Wgure only in part of the works by poets of the ‘received iambos’, while they are found in other genres of poetry as well. 129 The various ways of constructing psogos are illustrated by Heath (1989), 348–50. Rosen (2007a), 17–27 oVers an illuminating approach to ‘psogic modes’ in performance.
98
Ways of Seeing 6. T HE M A RG I TE S A ND IAMBOI
Aristotle mentions the Margites twice in his theoretical account of the history of poetry (nos. 2 and 3). There are a number of oddities about these references. First of all, the Margites exempliWes a period to which it does not belong, for it is clear that Aristotle envisages the stage of psogos to be pre-Homeric. Although he cannot name an example of pre-Homeric psogos, he Wnds it plausible that there were many ( NŒe b rÆØ ºº). Thus Aristotle, speculating about that pre-Homeric stage, mentions Homer’s Margites and other similar poems as examples of psogos. He uses what he knows (Margites and similar poems) in order to make inferences about things he only has a hypothesis for (psogos). Not only does the Margites exemplify a period to which it does not belong, it also exempliWes a category to which it does not belong.130 For Aristotle says later on (no. 3) that the Margites is in fact a dramatization not of psogoi but of the laughable ( e ª ºE). A further diYculty emerges in that, although Aristotle postulates that the more serious poets imitated good actions and good characters, and the morally inferior ones imitated the actions of low or ordinary people, he makes Homer a composer in both branches of poetry. As we have seen, this goes against the very principle of the diVerentiation of poetry according to character stated in no. 2. All this makes it diYcult to assess the generic aYliation of the Margites in Aristotle’s view. For our purpose it is important to establish whether he saw the Margites as an instance of iambos as a genre,131 or whether the relation between the Margites and iambos is only one of metre. But Wrst, a few words about the Margites. The fate of transmission of the Margites does not match its prominent place in Aristotle’s Poetics, its popularity among fourth-century orators and philosophers, and the admiration of Callimachus.132 Although some sources attribute the Margites to Homer in his youth (e.g. Dio Chrys. 53.4), its date and authorship have been a
130 Else (1957), 138; (1986), 93. 131 Particularly in view of West’s suggestion that the Margites was an instance of iambos (West (1974), 30). 132 Call. fr. 397 Pf. Cf. PfeiVer (1968), 74.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
99
matter of discussion since antiquity. Modern scholars have proposed a number of hypotheses regarding authorship. Bossi in his Studi sul Margite (1986) suggests the poem was composed after Homer by a Colophonian poet who may be identiWed with Xenophanes.133 Lee puts forward the notion that the Margites was a parody of the Odyssey, composed by Hipponax.134 Only six verses clearly ascribed to the Margites have come down to us (frr. 1, 2, 3W). Another verse, a proverbial trimeter (fr. 5W) has been attributed also to Archilochus (fr. 201W). In addition, three papyrus fragments (frr. 7–9W) have been ascribed to the Margites by virtue of metre, dialect, and subject matter.135 Surviving fragments and ancient references suggest that the Margites was a comic, mock-heroic poem dealing with a Wctitious character of proverbial stupidity (hence the speaking name, Margites, from æª, ‘mad’, and also ‘greedy’, ‘gluttonous’).136 On the assumption that fr. 8W belongs to the Margites, the poem included direct speech (cf. line 6: ] Ka Œ F) within the narrative. According to ancient sources, a notorious characteristic of the Margites was the irregular introduction of iambic trimeters among dactylic hexameters (Hephaestion, pp. 60.2, 65.10), which is consistent with fr. 1W. The combination of dactylic and iambic rhythms appears also in some of Archilochus’ epodes (see Introduction), CEG 454 (‘Nestor’s cup’), the ¯Næ ØÅ attributed to Homer (ps.-Hdt. Vita Homeri 467 V. Allen), Hipponax fr. 115W, and Xenophanes frr. 14 and 45 DK, which may belong to his Silloi.137 It is the insertion of iambic metres that gives rise to Aristotle’s comment, that in the Margites and similar poems138 the iambic metre (iambeion) was also appropriate. This comment deserves attention. 133 Bossi (1986), 39–43. 134 Lee (1993), 61, 64–5. The Suda’s attribution of the Margites to Pigres (5th-cent. bce poet of Halicarnassos) is usually doubted. 135 Fr. 7W (¼ P.Oxy. 2309, 1954, ed. Lobel), fr. 8W (¼ P.Oxy. 3963, 1992, ed. West) and fr. 9W (¼ P.Oxy. 3964, 1992, ed. West). 136 LSJ s.v. æª. 137 Bossi (1986), 41. 138 K x, which I believe to refer to the Margites and similar poems, is taken as a reference to psogos by Vahlen, Gudeman, and Lucas, even though it is far more natural to make it refer to what is immediately before: › Ææª Å ŒÆd a ØÆF Æ (as suggested by Rostagni and Hardy). It seems that the discomfort is due to the paradox of mentioning the Margites as ‘an instance of a genre to which on the other hand it is said not to belong’ (Else (1957), 138). Else suggested a drastic solution: to
100
Ways of Seeing
i. Iambeion kaleitai nun Aristotle’s explanation of the origins of the term iambeion is problematic because it derives YÆ from NÆ Ç Ø, the noun from the denominative verb, and not the other way round: Øe ŒÆd NÆ E ŒÆº E ÆØ F; ‹ Ø K fiH æfiø fiø N ØÇ Iºººı (‘for that reason it is called iambeion nowadays, because in that metre they used to abuse each other’). However, both the denominative verb iambizein and the adjective iambeion derive from iambos. As I argue in Chapter 7, section 3, iambeion derives from iambos in the rhythmical sense, while the later iambizein derives from iambos in the generic sense. How are we to understand this phrase, knowing as we do that iambeion does not derive from iambizein? It has been argued that the phrase could be a gloss by a later grammarian,139 but the structure is consistent with Aristotle’s style.140 If the phrase is authentic but the linguistic argument is, from our point of view, wrong, the phrase is better taken as witnessing a hypothesis rather than a fact. Let us see how this works. The verb NÆ Ç Ø is not attested before Aristotle. Let us provisionally deWne it simply as ‘to do what is typical of iamboi’. As we shall see in Chapter 11, what is perceived as typical of iambos in the fourth century bce is a type of content (humorous), of language (rude or dirty), and of purpose (abuse of individuals), which are unacceptable in everyday life, as being against etiquette141 and in some cases open to legal action. Hence we can infer that for Aristotle NÆ Ç Ø covers the cluster Œ Ø (mock), åº ıÇ Ø (joke), place lines 28–30 after ƒ b N ø ØÅ Æ . This, however, generates further problems, because it assumes that Aristotle took the Margites as an instance of iamboi, and moreover, that he favoured the Margites over Archilochus or Hipponax as an outstanding example of iamboi. For a survey of textual problems in Po. 1448b30–2 see Rotstein (2002), 257–60. 139 Rostagni (1927), 14; Gudeman (1934), 126; Montmollin (1951), 37; Lucas (1968), 76. 140 After making a general statement Aristotle often draws a consequence, which he introduces by Øe ŒÆ , but because this involves new information further explanation is required, which he introduces by ‹ Ø (e.g. Met. 1021b28–9: Øe ŒÆd º ı c ŒÆ a Æçæa ºª ÆØ º; ‹ Ø ¼çø åÆ Æ; Met. 1016b16–17; Met. 1034a29–30; Meteor. 352a19–25; de Part. Anim. 657b3–4; EN 1120b21–2). 141 Rosen (2007a), 41.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
101
ºØæ E (abuse), ÆNå溪 E (use shameful, i.e. obscene language), ŒÆŒºª E (speak ill of), łª Ø (abuse, slander). In other words, Aristotle and his readers probably associated NÆ Ç Ø with a range of verbal utterances, from mild, witty, funny jokes to sharp and pungent criticism, and also with a type of language that could include obscenities and insults.142 This meaning of iambizein contradicts the previously mentioned perception of the iambeion as the most appropriate metre for dialogue, i.e. the more neutral regarding content and more natural in terms of colloquial language.143 We can account for this inconsistency by making a distinction between references that apply to the past and those applying to the present. In both the Poetics and the Rhetoric Aristotle speaks of the use of the iambic trimeter in Attic drama of the Wfth century, and possibly also about contemporary use. In the present, the metre is not associated with abuse. However, in the sentence Øe ŒÆd NÆ E ŒÆº E ÆØ F; ‹ Ø K fiH æfiø fiø N ØÇ Iºººı, Aristotle explains the origins of the term in contemporary use (F) by reference to the past, as the imperfect N ØÇ indicates. In other words, Aristotle explains why nowadays the iambeion has its name: in an early stage for which, as we have seen, he merely oVers a hypothesis, the iambic metre was used for exchanging mockery and abuse. The pronoun Iºººı, ‘each other’, deserves attention. It indicates that Aristotle is not thinking of a poet abusing his target (a real or Wctitious one) before an audience. On the contrary, he seems to envisage a situation of exchange of abuse between two symmetrical parties: ‘they used to abuse each other in that metre’.144 The occasions implied in this exchange of abuse between symmetrical parties probably include abuse at festivals, processions, and particularly in the cult of Demeter. According to ancient references to these practices, the two parties abusing each other could be men and women, 142 Kantzios (2005), 7–8. 143 The fact that Aristotle linked iambeia to dialogue could be one of the reasons for later scholarship’s tendency to ignore the melic side of iamboi (Bartol, personal communication). 144 Else (1986), 93 Wnds in ‘each other’ the clue to Aristotle’s thinking on the iambic metre: ‘he may have thought that iambic verse was used initially because of its suitability for exchange of speeches, for conversation, and then later acquired its other meaning from its early use, because those exchanges were satirical’.
102
Ways of Seeing
participants in a procession and their audience, or between people from diVerent towns (see Chapter 6, sect. 2). These occasions are compatible with the circumstances envisaged by Plato in the Laws for the performance of psogoi. In addition to communal and ritual abuse, other possible opportunities for the exchange of abuse between symmetrical parties are komoi and symposia.145 Thus Aristotle projects backwards the exchange of abuse he could Wnd in contemporary ritual, festive, komastic, and sympotic contexts. In sum, in spite of the use of the iambic trimeter in Wfth- and fourthcentury Athenian drama and thus its rather neutral Xavour, Aristotle favoured an explanation of the origins of the term iambeion with reference to a hypothetical situation where abuse was exchanged between symmetrical parts. At the core of the explanation is a linguistic derivation, the iambeion from iambizein. Underlying the etymological argument is a hypothesis of development from improvised mutual abuse at ritual, komastic, or sympotic occasions. This hypothesis proceeds by taking iambos as dominantly abusive, as it was perceived in the fourth century bce, and applying this feature backwards to a pre-Homeric stage.
ii. Back to the Margites To go back to the Margites. The relation that Aristotle establishes with iamboi is a purely metrical one. In fact, the Margites does not serve as an example of iamboi; rather it takes their place. Indeed, once iamboi were mentioned, Aristotle’s audience most probably expected to Wnd Archilochus as an example.146 By Aristotle’s time Archilochus was already a representative of the genre of iambos (see Chapter 10), and Aristotle himself was well acquainted with Archilochus’ works. The fact that only the humorous branch of poetry receives examples, and that the Margites appears as an all-encompassing illustration of anything before comedy, suggests that the choice of the Margites as a predecessor of Comedy was polemic and ideologically driven. First, it 145 On sympotic performance of mockery, e.g. at the Spartan syssitia, see Rosen (2003). 146 Else (1986), 94. Lord (1974), 203 noted that Aristotle modiWes the tradition according to which Archilochus was the Wrst poet to compose ‘invectives’.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
103
allowed Aristotle to construct a Homer-centred history of poetry147 in a branch whose º is the comic, while creating a symmetry of argument.148 Second, it let him avoid some of the associations that Archilochus and iambic poetry usually evoked, and thus detach the telos of the comic branch of poetry from what was perceived as characteristic of iamboi, namely invective. Finally, since the humour in the Margites is achieved at the expense of a Wctitious character, it is consistent with a view of poetry as having to do with universals, rather than particulars, which, as Aristotle says in chapter 9, is the case of both history and iambic poetry. Aristotle is, therefore, pushing the point that not Archilochus, but Homer in the Margites was the Wrst to compose a true proto-dramatic instance of the comic. Let us recapitulate. The Margites appears in the Wrst two stages of the theoretical approach to the history of poetry: the Wrst one, that of psogoi, although the stage is conceived as pre-Homeric, and the second one, that of iamboi. Psogos, as we have seen, is a broad category comprising a number of genres with a shared function. Aristotle hypothesizes about that pre-Homeric stage for which he knows no example by retrojecting phenomena known to him, namely the Margites and similar burlesque or mock-heroic poems, probably including parody, and the exchange of abuse typical of some Greek festivals, komoi, and symposia. For Aristotle the Margites seems to be an item on the margins of the broad category of psogos that builds e ª ºE into a proto-dramatic story (æÆÆ ØÆ). Dealing with a Wctitious character, the poem does not cause pain but still achieves laughter,149 and in this sense it is akin to the ideal type of comedy. In addition, Aristotle favoured the Margites as an example of psogos over any other Greek poem because the plot and length were appropriate to what he perceived as a conceptual ancestor of comedy. He probably found that those qualities were absent from the work of the iambographers: iamboi would not have enough magnitude and oVer no dramatic representations of e ª ºE. Moreover, as we shall see in
147 de Ste. Croix (1975). 148 Finkelberg (personal communication). 149 Cf. Po. 1449a34–7: e ªaæ ª ºE K Ø ±æ Å Ø ŒÆd Ærå Iı ŒÆd P çŁÆæ ØŒ ; x PŁf e ª ºE æ ø ÆNåæ Ø ŒÆd Ø æÆ ¼ ı OÅ.
104
Ways of Seeing
the next section, iamboi are representations of the particular, and not the general. In sum, Aristotle does not say in the extant text of the Poetics that the Margites is an instance of iambos. At most we can postulate that the Margites, along with other burlesque poems, was considered by Aristotle to be part of the broad family of psogos—together with iambos.150
7. THE I A M B I K E I D E A It is time to tackle one of the most widely known ancient statements about iambic poetry, and perhaps one of the least understood. The phrase iambike idea appears in no. 7 of the Empirical Approach (chapter 5 of the Poetics). After noting the lack of recorded evidence on the development of comedy in aspects such as masks, prologues, and number of actors, Aristotle makes a comment about plot:
e b Łı Ø E ½ ¯ åÆæ ŒÆd * æØ e b K IæåB KŒ ØŒ º Æ qºŁ ; H b ŁÅØ ˚æ Å æH qæ Iç B NÆ ØŒB NÆ ŒÆŁ ºı Ø E º ªı ŒÆd Łı. (Po. 1449b5–9) As for plot construction, originally it came from Sicily; of those at Athens, Crates was the Wrst to abandon the iambic form and construct universalized stories and plots.151
150 It is risky to build an argument from silence, particularly in a work such as the Poetics which besides its elliptic style does not focus on individual poets; but speculation on the matter can be enlightening even if questions remain open. Aristotle considered naturally skilled individuals, such as Homer, as the agents that could bring about the development of poetry towards its telos. Thus individual achievements account for change and development. The Margites is not simply an example of what pre-Homeric psogos could look like. It also makes it possible for Homer to be the main agent of change in both branches of poetry. This is done at the expense of the iambographers. Is it possible that invective was not perceived as prominent enough in the work of the iambographers to provide an example of what pre-Homeric psogos could look like? Or is Aristotle talking of psogos as a category that in fact has not much to do with invective proper? 151 Translated by Heath (1990), 143–4.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
105
The word idea in this passage has a rather concrete sense, as ‘form’, similar to the use of the word in Aristotle’s biological works.152 The meaning of NÆ ØŒ is not readily understandable because the adjective is not attested before Aristotle. Moreover, Aristotle does not usually qualify the term NÆ with adjectives but with adnominal genitives ( a NÆ H ±ºH ø ø, Cael. 274b2; fi B Nfi Æ F IªÆŁF, EE 1217b6; NÆ F ZæØŁ, HA 615b28; B F ¼ææ NÆ, Phgn. 809b15), with the exception of pronominal adjectives (ÆP ; ¼ºº, etc.). Thus, the expression NÆ ØŒc NÆ is equivalent to F N ı NÆ, ‘the idea of the iambos’, i.e. ‘the form of the iambos’. The unusual use of an adjective instead of a noun in the genitive indicates that the notion of the stem iamb- is to be taken as a quality. Our understanding of iambos would determine what quality is referred to here. To this, the context is decisive. A near contemporary of Aristotle, Aristoxenus of Tarentum, uses the adjective NÆ ØŒ in contexts referring to rhythm and metre. In Aristotle, however, the context suggests that the quality iambos refers to has to do with generic properties. Aristotle’s NÆ ØŒc NÆ, the ‘iambic form’, is usually construed as a reference to mockery of named individuals, abuse, and obscenity (OÆ d Œøfiø E; ł ª, and ÆNå溪 Æ).153 The title of this book alludes to this phrase in an attempt to reverse the inXuence of this misinterpretation on our perception of the ancient iambos. To restore the phrase to its original meaning, Malcolm Heath compellingly argued that the usual interpretation of iambike idea as ‘individual’ abuse is mistaken, and that it rather refers to the construction of ‘individual’ plot.154 Heath suggests that in order to understand the 152 Bonnitz (1955), s.v. NÆ 1: ‘forma, Wgura, species, quae sensibus percipitur. syn. æç.’ Cf. LSJ s.v. NÆ. Bartol (1993a), 41 is enlightening: ‘when referring to literary material NÆ signiWes the principles of composing a poem. ( . . . ) Thus, the term NÆ approximates in some way the meaning of the expression ‘‘literary genre’’, as conceived by Alexandrian and later scholars.’ I am grateful to Orna Harari for her valuable comments on Aristotle’s use of the term NÆ. 153 Rostagni (1927), 19; Gudeman (1934), 152; Bonanno (1971), 44; Halliwell (1987), 85; Degani (1988a), 1008–10; Rosen (1988a), 29–30; Degani (1991), 1–9; Brown (1997), 39. Lee (1993) takes it for granted that the expression NÆ ØŒc NÆ refers to personal invective and obscenity (see e.g. pp. 68–71). 154 Heath (1989). Bartol (1993a), 41 suggests that the NÆ ØŒc NÆ ‘was realized in works the structure of which was not dramatic, i.e. which did not possess dramatic FŁØ and º ªØ’. Cf. Lord (1974), 201.
106
Ways of Seeing
phrase we should take into account a passage in chapter 9 of the Poetics which refers to iambopoioi while speaking about plot composition: Øe ŒÆd çغç æ ŒÆd ıÆØ
æ ÅØ ƒ æ Æ K : b ªaæ ÅØ Aºº a ŒÆŁ ºı; ƒ æ Æ a ŒÆŁ ŒÆ ºª Ø: Ø b ŒÆŁ ºı ; fiH fiø a EÆ ¼
Æ ı Æ Ø ºª Ø j æ
Ø ŒÆ a e NŒe j e IƪŒÆE; y åÇ ÆØ ÅØ O Æ Æ KØ ØŁ Å: e b ŒÆŁ ŒÆ ; ºŒØ ØÅ æÆ j ÆŁ : Kd b s B Œøfiø Æ XÅ F Bº ªª : ı Æ ªaæ e FŁ Øa H NŒ
ø o ø
a ıå Æ O Æ Æ ØŁÆØ; ŒÆd På u æ ƒ NÆ Ød æd e ŒÆŁ ŒÆ ØFØ. (Po. 1451a36–b15) Consequently, poetry is more philosophical and more elevated than history, since poetry relates more of the universal, while history relates particulars. Universal means the kinds of things which it suits a certain kind of person to say or do, in terms of probability or necessity: poetry aims for this, even though attaching names to the agents. A ‘particular’ means, say, what Alcibiades did or experienced. In comedy, this point has by now become obvious: the poets construct the plot on the basis of probability, and only then supply arbitrary names; they do not, like iambic poets, write about a particular person.155
In the two passages Aristotle makes a contrast between iamboi and comedy, from the point of view of plot (FŁ). In the Wrst (Poetics 5), the iambic form is placed in contrast to the composition of ‘universal’ plots (ŒÆŁ ºı Ø E º ªı ŒÆd Łı). In the second (Poetics 9), iambic poets are said to compose about individuals ( æd e ŒÆŁ ŒÆ ). The two references are complementary. Aristotle sees the construction of plot as the essence of the poet’s activity as opposed to the mere composition of verses (Po. 1451b27). In his view, the composition of events ( H æƪ ø ÆØ) is pre-eminent among the parts of tragedy (chapter 6). Moreover, plot (› FŁ), along with actions or events ( a æªÆ Æ), is the telos of tragedy, and the beginning or Wrst principle (Iæå) of tragedy. A well-constructed, ‘whole’ plot has a beginning, a middle part, and an end (Po. 1450b23–34). These parts should be arranged according to what is necessary or usual (j K IªŒÅ j ‰ Kd e º, i.e. ‘for the 155 Translated by Halliwell (1995), 59–61.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
107
most part’, Po. 1450b29),156 in such a way that one follows the other by necessity, and if one of the elements is taken out, the whole plot changes. This concept of ‘whole’ in plot is very close to the modern concept of system, not as a mere sum of components, but as a whole in which not only the presence but also the relation among components aVects the whole and contributes to its meaning. Aristotle opposes this organic structure to the composition of plots by mere chance, and here again he uses the word idea with reference to plot.157 An organic plot is thus one causally constructed. In other words, what makes an action complete is that the components are tied by causality.158 Now this notion of a causally constructed plot is consistent with the innovation that Aristotle attributed to Crates in our Wrst passage. Indeed, Aristotle considered Crates159 the Wrst comic poet (either the Wrst among Athenian poets or the Wrst in general)160 who made a signiWcant change in plot construction: he began to compose ‘universal’ plots (ŒÆŁ ºı Ø E º ªı ŒÆd Łı).161 Now ŒÆŁ ºı is a technical term that Aristotle uses for the universal, that is, what happens by necessity, and as a semitechnical term for what happens ‘for the most part’ (‰ Kd e º).162 It is the universality of plot that renders poetry superior to history in Aristotle’s eyes. Hence, the famous statement that poetry is more philosophical than history, because poetry speaks about the universal ( a ŒÆŁ ºı) while history speaks about the individual or particular ( a ŒÆŁ ŒÆ ).163 A similar distinction between universal and particular is applied to the works of the writers of comedy (Aristotle was probably referring to New Comedy) and of iambographers, in the second passage quoted above. Because 156 Frede (1992), 200. On Aristotle’s concept of organic composition, see Ford (2002), 265–6. 157 ÅŁ › Ł ıå ¼æå ŁÆØ Ł ‹ı ıå º ı A; Iºº Œ åæBŁÆØ ÆE KØæÅÆØ NÆØ (Po. 1450b34). 158 Heath (1989), 348–52. 159 See Bonanno (1971), 41–4, for Aristotle’s view of Crates. 160 Heath (1989); (1990), 143–4. 161 In this phrase ŒÆ is epexegetic: ‘arguments, that is, plots’; Else (1957), 202; Lucas (1968), 91. 162 Both interpretations of ŒÆŁ ºı allow for explanation. I am grateful to Jane Barton for her enlightening comments on Aristotle’s universals. 163 de Ste. Croix (1975).
108
Ways of Seeing
iambos deals with what happens to individuals, the work of the iambographers has no claim to universality. Their work is, at any rate, in a similar position as history: they both deal with e ŒÆŁ ŒÆ and therefore they are both less philosophical and less universal than Aristotle’s ideal of poetry. In sum, Aristotle opposes the iambike idea, the form characteristic of the work of the iambographers to the concept of ‘universal’ (ŒÆŁ ºı) composition of plot. Due to the supremacy of plot in Aristotle’s view of poetry, he values most those compositions in which the parts are causally related, resulting in a plot with organic unity. Given Aristotle’s views of plot, one can see how he found iambic poetry, as probably many other poetic genres (including elegy and lyric poetry), unsatisfying. Those genres are not primarily about actions or events, composition and unity being achieved by other, perhaps associative rather than logical, causal principles. The ‘lack of causally consequent plot-structure’, to put it in Heath’s words, rendered iambos inferior to comedy in Aristotle’s eyes.164 Moreover, dealing with real individuals instead of Wctional characters fails to achieve what Aristotle sees as the highest purpose of comedy: humour that is in no way painful.
8 . A R I S TOTL E ’ S C O N C E P TUAL I ZAT I O N O F I A MB O S Aristotle was acquainted with Archilochus’ works, and probably oVered a treatment of iambos in the lost second book of the Poetics. Although the genre was not appropriate for exemplifying the principles of classiWcation in the Wrst three chapters of the Poetics, we Wnd clues for a reconstruction of Aristotle’s conceptualization of iambos in his history of poetry. He approached the issue of historical change of genres in two ways, one theoretical or deductive, and the other empirical or inductive. Consequently, the status of iambos is diVerent in each approach.
164 Heath (1989), 349.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
109
In the theoretical approach iamboi are seen as succeeding psogoi, though not ‘developed from’ them. Aristotle uses the term psogoi to describe a broad category of pre-Homeric and probably preArchilochean poetic compositions in the comic branch of poetry. This use is anchored in Greek traditional moral attitudes, as well as rhetorical theory and practice, and has speciWc antecedents in Plato. Thus, iambos belongs to the category of psogos, which is construed as a macro-genre covering several types of literary compositions regardless of traditional generic distinctions. With regard to comedy, iambos is conceived as a conceptual, though not historical forerunner of comedy. To the speculative section of the history of poetry belongs the hypothesis that the iambic metre was used in the past for the exchange of abuse in ritual, festive, komastic, or sympotic contexts. This hypothesis indicates that Aristotle perceived psogos as a dominant feature of the archaic iambos, but since the etymology is wrong, the hypothesis of the origins of the term remains doubtful. In the empirical approach to the history of poetry a reference to iambos appears in the expression iambike idea. The phrase, meaning ‘the form of iambos’, refers to the lack of universal, organic plot. Here belongs the reference to the use of the iambic metre in classical drama, as the metre closer to the colloquial register. To summarize our inferences from the information provided by Aristotle on iambos as a literary genre: Metre. Aristotle uses the term iambos to refer to a type of rhythm and to speciWc poems composed in iambic trimeter and trochaic tetrameter. As for iambeion, this generally applies to the iambic trimeter, especially of Attic drama. Although the iambeion is one of the metres typically used by the iambographers, in whose work the features of abuse and obscenity were perceived as dominant in Aristotle’s time, it had been used for more than a century to represent dialogue in Attic tragedy, without any association with abuse and obscenity. Hence Aristotle’s two contrasting views of the iambeion. First, as a ‘neutral’ metre with respect to semantic associations, and therefore the metre more appropriate to represent dialogue. Second, and only when dealing with the origins of the name iambeion, Aristotle oVers a hypothesis of origins in the exchange of abuse, and thus explains the humorous eVect of the insertion of iambic trimeters among
110
Ways of Seeing
dactylic hexameters in the Margites and other similar poems. According to Aristotle, the iambeion was used for the exchange of abuse in the past, but in contemporary use the metre best reXects the rhythms of the standard colloquial register. Origins of iambeion. Aristotle held to a hypothesis of origins in the exchange of abuse at ritual, festive, komastic, and/or sympotic occasions. Mode. Iambos can make use of dramatic impersonation, sometimes embedded in a narrative frame, as appears from the quotations of poems by Archilochus. This technique allows the poet to distance himself from vituperation by attributing it to another person. Structure. In Aristotle’s eyes iamboi lack overall structure, what he calls a general plot, one in which the elements are linked by causality. From this point of view iambos falls short of the Margites and of the ideal type of comedy. Aristotle’s reference to the innovation attributed to Crates of ‘abandoning the form of iambos’ implies that compared to drama iamboi tend to have a loose, non-organic structure, in which components are related by principles other than causality. Performance. Aristotle attests that iamboi were publicly performed in theatres, and perhaps also in symposia (further on Pol. 1336b and the performance of iamboi in Chapter 9, sect. 3). Language. The possible presence of aischrologia, ‘obscene language’, makes iamboi a spectacle that is not appropriate for young people (I discuss aischrologia in Pol. 1336b in Chapter 9, sect. 3). Extent. Extent being an important aspect of a well-constructed plot (Chapter 7), Aristotle considered the length of iambic poems unsatisfactory in comparison to comedy (Øa e Çø ŒÆd K Ø
æÆ a åÆ Æ). He attests a perception of iamboi as signiWcantly shorter than the average comedy. Function. Criticism of individuals is dominant, probably as a means of arousing laughter (hence the allocation of iamboi to the branch of the comic). The fact that Aristotle allows male adults to attend iambic performances may imply that he acknowledges their positive role in relaxation. Obscenity, which can feature in performances of iamboi according to the Politics, is comic, although it is not Aristotle’s favourite means of achieving humour.
Iambos in Aristotle’s Works
111
The Margites. The generic aYliation is ambiguous. The Margites is situated in the comic branch of poetry, somewhere between psogos and comedy, as a more acceptable example165 of psogoi rather than iamboi. The main diVerence between the Margites and iambic poetry lies in the fact that the Margites satisWes Aristotle’s demands for dramatic representation with a universal plot, while iambic poetry does not. The Margites has no strict generic relationship to iamboi, but it shares one of iamboi’s main rhythms, the iambic trimeter. Archilochus. Although Aristotle was familiar enough with his work, he deliberately omitted Archilochus from the history of poetry, pressing the point that the Margites is the best example of early humorous poetry. Comedy. This is not said to develop out of iamboi in the theoretical approach to the development of poetry, but out of a çƺºØŒ, phallic songs, in the empirical approach. Teleology and analogy account for the statement that poets became composers of comedy instead of iamboi, but the statement does not have historical validity. The place of iambos in a hierarchy of genres. From the point of view of plot and size, Aristotle considers iambos inferior to the ideal type of comedy. Iamboi are not only seen as a conceptual predecessor of comedy, but as a genre passe´ and superseded by comedy. Although the notion of poets devoting themselves to comedy instead of to iamboi is historically unsound, it reveals a view of the genre’s peak in the period before the development of drama, that is to say, a period probably conceived as coinciding with Archilochus. This perception of the heyday of iambic poetry had an impact on the importance that later scholars assigned to iamboi and consequently on their transmission. This was not a reconstruction of the characteristics of iambos, but of Aristotle’s conceptualization. In the following chapter we shall look at the reception of these views in post-Aristotelian scholarship. 165 There is an essential distinction between ł ª in Plato’s Laws and Aristotle’s reference to the Margites. In Plato blame has an educational purpose; it is blame by the good poet in order to admonish the community. Plato’s psogoi are compositions about real people, performed with these people as part of the audience, while in the Margites the poet makes fun of a Wctional character.
4 Ancient Theories of Iambos In this chapter I explore the various historical ‘ways of seeing’ the genre of iambos in ancient scholarship after Aristotle. In ancient no less than in modern scholarship, the way in which the category of genre is conceived shapes and conditions the way in which the speciWc category of iambos is conceptualized. However, the intellectual achievements of the Hellenistic period have not reached us in the form of systematic treatments of literary genres, but only as comments scattered in later sources, such as scholia and lexica. In these, etymologies play a major role. I shall therefore begin with an overview of the Hellenistic scholarship on iambos and the views emerging from ancient etymologies, before I turn to late antique deWnitions of the genre. Since generic concepts are explicit in works that belong to what the ancients considered the realm of grammar rather than philology, in order to Wnd iambos within something akin to systematic treatments of genres we will have to go backwards and forwards in time: from the grammarian Diomedes (4th cent. bce), to Photius’ (9th cent. ce) summary of a handbook by Proclus (5th cent. ce, or 2nd cent. ce), and back to the late Hellenistic period through the testimony of Philodemus of Gadara (1st cent. bce). At the end of this journey we shall be able to propose three main historical ways of conceptualizing literary genres, and the ensuing views of iambos.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
113
1. A NC I ENT S CH OL ARSHIP ON I A MB O S As we have seen in the previous chapter (Chapter 3, sect. 2), there was an ongoing scholarly interest in the life, work, and language of Archilochus before the advent of Alexandrian scholarship. Glaucus of Rhegium touched on the poet’s contribution to the development of music in his book On the Archaic Poets and Musicians, whereas Heraclides’ On Archilochus and Homer and Aristotle’s DiYculties of Archilochus, Euripides and Choerilus seem to have dealt with the interpretation of problematic passages. Archilochus probably had a signiWcant place in Aristotle’s lost book On Poets, as iamboi most likely did in the lost second book of the Poetics. From these works it is possible to infer that Archilochus’ poems were circulating in written form by at least the mid-fourth century bce, probably in an independent edition that predated and was the basis of Hellenistic editions. Although little has survived from these pre-Hellenistic studies on Archilochus, it is nevertheless clear that his poems, including to some extent his iamboi, were considered worthy of scholarly work before the third century bce. Thus, Archilochus’ status was well established before the canon attributed to Aristarchus was formed. Towards the end of the fourth century bce we also Wnd incidental references to the re-performance of Archilochus’ poems. Chamaeleon of Heraclea Pontica, who was active in the later part of the fourth century bce and was known for his monographs on poets, makes a reference to the musical setting of Archilochus’ poems (Ath. 620c). Clearchus of Soli, a student of Aristotle, refers to the performance of Archilochus’ poems by the rhapsode Simonides of Zakynthos in his book æd ˆæ çø (a collection of riddles) (fr. 92 Wehrli ¼ Ath. 620c). I shall go back to these testimonies in my discussion of the performance of iamboi in Chapter 9, section 4. Here it is enough to note that details on the re-performance of Archilochus’ poems were considered worthy of being recorded. Scholarly interest in Archilochus continued, subtly but persistently, in early Ptolemaic Alexandria, as scholars devoted monographs and commentaries to the iambic poets. Needless to say, this production cannot compare with the amount of work done on Homer and the tragic poets, but it shows continuity of interest in the Weld.
114
Ways of Seeing
Apollonius Rhodius, for example, wrote a æd æåغ åı (‘On Archilochus’, Ath. 451d), where he probably dealt with issues of language and subject-matter as well as textual problems.1 This book included Apollonius’ interpretation of the phrase IåıÅ Œı ºÅ, ‘grievous message-stick’, in Archil. 185W, based on a Spartan custom.2 On the same phrase Aristophanes of Byzantium wrote a monograph æd B IåıÅ Œı ºÅ ªªæÆÆ (‘Composition on the grievous message-stick’, Ath. 85e).3 Later Aristarchus wrote the æåغ å ØÆ Æ Æ (‘Archilocheian Commentaries’, Clem. Strom. 1.21.117),4 presumably a running commentary on Archilochus’ text. Perhaps the Hellenistic study whose loss we may regret most is the æd NÆ ØH (‘On the Iambic Poets’) in at least two books (Ath. 620c) by Lysanias of Cyrene (3rd cent. bce), a teacher of Aristarchus. The two extant references to this treatise show an interest in the performance of Semonides’ iamboi (Ath. 620c, see Chapter 9, sect. 4) and include a quotation from Hipponax (Ath. 304b ¼ Hippon. 26W). Given all previous interest in Archilochus and his status as representative of iambic poetry, it is most likely that Lysanias included him as well. Unfortunately, we cannot tell if Lysanias dealt with other iambic poets, in addition to the trio of iambographers. Did Lysanias oVer a theoretical deWnition of the genre of iambos or was his book more pragmatic, with a focus on the poets’ lives? We cannot answer this question either, but a concept of genre must have been a tacit organizing principle of Lysanias’ book, even if this concept was simply coextensive with the canon of three iambographers. Hipponax too was edited and studied in the third and second centuries bce. Hermippus of Smyrna, a student of Callimachus, wrote a æd ÆŒ (‘On Hipponax’, Ath. 327b ¼ fr. 169W) in at least two books. The work is referred to in a second-century ce papyrus containing a commentary on Hipponax (P.Oxy. 2176 ¼ 118W).5 The
1 As this type of æd-literature did, cf. PfeiVer (1968), 218. 2 PfeiVer (1968), 145; West (1988). 3 The word ªªæÆÆ may not be part of the original title. 4 PfeiVer (1968), 220. P.Berol. 21247 suggests that a commentary on Archilochus, possibly the one by Aristarchus, was still available in a 4th-cent. ce library (` æ ½åغ å ؽ ÅÆ, fr. 1, l. 2). 5 Degani (1984), 35.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
115
great number of references to Hipponax by Hesychius and other lexicographers (e.g. Hippon. 4aW), along with references to Hipponax by Aristophanes of Byzantion (Ar. Byz. p. 117 N; Hippon. 114bW), Polemon of Ilium (Ath. 698b ¼ Hippon. 128W), and Demetrius of Scepsis (probably the source of Strabo 8.3.8 ¼ Hippon. 125W),6 indicate that commentaries, and presumably an edition of Hipponax, were available in the third and second centuries bce.7 Interest in Hipponax appears as particularly characteristic of scholars associated with the centre of learning at Pergamon: Hermippus of Smyrna, Polemon of Ilium, and Demetrius of Scepsis.8 This may be due to the availability of information and even texts in nearby cities of Asia Minor, such as Ephesus or Clazomenai. As seen in Chapter 2, section 2, the poems of the three iambographers were edited at some point in the third or second century bce: Archilochus in an edition arranged by metre (elegies, trimeters, tetrameters, and epodes), and Hipponax and Semonides each in at least two books. I have suggested in Chapter 2 the possibility that Pergamon produced an additional edition of Archilochus that was not organized by metre. Given the interest in Hipponax among Pergamene scholars, it is possible that an edition of his poems was produced there too. Phoenix of Colophon, roughly contemporary with Callimachus, who wrote choliambic poetry with Hipponax as a model, may have availed himself of such a text. If, as Cassio has pointed out, ‘a Hellenistic edition of an archaic author is an interpretation of an old text, either directly or through an intermediate, say late classical, text’,9 then evidence of Hellenistic editions, supported by testimonies for fourth-century scholarship on Archilochus, makes a strong case for the circulation of texts by iambic poets possibly in the Wfth century bce, more probably in the fourth century bce. In sum, in the fourth century bce and throughout the Hellenistic period there was steady interest in the iambic poets and their work, with a particular focus on Archilochus, and later on Hipponax as well. Together with a biographical interest there were editions, monographs 6 PfeiVer (1968), 199, 248–9; Degani (1984), 36. Polemon, who is often characterized as an ‘antiquarian’ because he practised autopsy in his geographical works, attributed to Hipponax the origins of parody (Ath. 698b ¼ Hippon. 128W). Demetrius of Scepsis quoted Semonides too (fr. 3.5 ¼ Ath. 658b ¼ Sem. 22W). 7 Degani (1984), 35–6. 8 PfeiVer (1968), 247–50; Lomiento (2001), 312–13. 9 Cassio (2002), 58.
116
Ways of Seeing
on textual problems, and line by line commentaries. Aspects of musical innovation, performance, and re-performance were deemed worth recording, and obscure passages, such as the IåıÅ Œı ºÅ, gave rise to scholarly polemic. Reception became creative in the reformulation of the genre by Hellenistic poets such as Callimachus and Phoenix. Thus, ancient scholars considered iambic poems as belonging to the corpus of great texts that were worthy of preservation, transmission, and interpretation. And yet, no traces of their conceptualization of the genre of iamboi have survived. We may be right to assume that Aristotle’s views were dominant in antiquity. Such views were simpliWed and popularized by educational texts, and, as we shall go on to see, etymologies were a main carrier of those simpliWed views.
2. ETYMOLOGIES OF IA M B O S In Greek literary history explanation by means of etymology is at least as old as the interpretation of Homer. Etymology accounts for the origins of words by derivation, composition, and association, based on similarities of sound. Close to Stoic views of language, the basic assumption of etymologies is that words are connected to the reality they name. Thus, etymologies are successful if they make sense in terms of both sound and meaning. See, for example, the etymology of elegos oVered by the Etymologicum Gudianum: º ª: › ŁæB: Ææa e s ºª Ø f ŁÆ Æ (‘elegos: threnos. From the speaking well (eu legein) of the dead ones’, Et. Gud. s.v., cf. EM s.v., Orion 58.7).10 Thus, the threnos would have been called elegos because it involved eulogy of the dead (Et. Gud. 180.19–20). This suits the deWnition of elegy as funeral lament while at the same time providing a plausible composition of the word in terms of sound. The explanatory power of etymology is regularly exploited by ancient scholarship.11 Sometimes etymologies are developed into 10 This explanation goes back to Didymus. For a survey of ancient etymologies of º ª and cognates, see Severyns (1938), vol. 2, 99–101; Grandolini (1999), 3–8. Cf. West (1974), 7–9; Bowie (1986), 25. 11 Etymology is the fourth part of grammar according to Dionysius Thrax ( Ææ K ıºª Æ oæ Ø, 1.1).
Ancient Theories of Iambos
117
stories, in an attempt to make sense of the not always evident link between a word and its etymological explanation. This is often the case with eponyms, such as Elege, Elegeis, or Elegos (schol. to Dionysius Thrax 307.19–24).12 From our point of view, it is often diYcult to draw the boundaries between eponyms that we Wnd historically plausible and those that we do not. However, while modern scholars are ready to discard the various eponyms suggested by the ancients for elegy, Iambe has found far more credit, probably because she is mentioned in an early text, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. The linguistic accuracy of many ancient etymologies can often be called into question. Their historical value consists less in the revelation of an inherent truth ( e ı) than of a cultural way of seeing a particular word, concept, or practice. Take, for example, the derivation of ÞÆłfiø (rhapsode) from ÞÆ (staV) (scholia to Nemean 2.1c 29–30). Probably a popular etymology, it reveals both the strong association that the ancients perceived between those professional performers and the traditional symbol of their authority, and a particular way of thinking through that association.13 In Greek literary historiography etymologies are inextricably linked to hypotheses on the origins of genres. Since they are not and cannot be conclusive, they can be recruited to support almost any view of the nature of the genre by an appeal to its origins. In the case of the archaic iambos, I believe that the nature of the genre is not to be sought in its etymology.14 However, attempts in that direction are not without interest, and several modern theories about the origins and etymology of YÆ deserve attention15 before we turn to ancient ones. The word YÆ is generally considered pre-Greek, usually of non Indo-European origin (Chantraine, Frisk),16 although Indo-European roots have been proposed (Brandenstein, Landa). Through a comparison with Łæ Æ and ØŁæÆ , Brandenstein suggested that YÆ is a Greek compound of a Wrst element meaning ‘limb’ 12 West (1974), 9. 13 On this popular etymology, see Fra¨nkel (1975), 394 n. 57; Lanata (1963), 118; West (1981b), 114; Nagy (1996); Graziosi (2002), 23–4, with further references. 14 Cf. Brown (1997), 25. 15 Gerhard (1914), 652–3; Bartol (1993a), 36–8. 16 Chantraine (1933), 260; Frisk (1960), 704 (s.v. YÆ ).
118
Ways of Seeing . (cf. Skt. angam) and a numeral dvi-, ‘two’, that is ‘two-steps’, the name of a dance.17 Similarly, Łæ Æ and ØŁæÆ would stand respectively for ‘three-step’ and ‘four-step’. Versnel, however, argues that nothing in the Greek testimonies for Łæ Æ supports the meaning of ‘dance’,18 but that before the Roman period Łæ Æ was both an epithet of Dionysos and the name of a song. Versnel further suggests that YÆ , Łæ Æ , and ØŁæÆ derive from the exclamatory forms N, ŁæØÆ, ØŁıæÆ, which were extended to YÆ , Łæ Æ , ØŁæÆ .19 Accordingly, the three would be the names of songs, rather than names of dances as Brandenstein thought.20 Similarly, West suggested that the three words iambos, thriambos, and dithyrambos are associated with the cult of Dionysus and that they can denote either a person or a type of composition.21 Other etymological explanations link iambos to the realm of ritual. Kretcher and Theander proposed a derivation of iambos from the ritual cry N (following the Etymologicum Magnum, see below), which can further be connected to NÆØ, ‘heal’, suggesting, in turn, a link to apotropaic or puriWcatory rites.22 Lennartz tentatively suggests that iambos may be connected with the musical realm, based on a comparison with NÆ ŒÅ, perhaps with Æ ŒÅ (see Chapter 8, sect. 4).23 Janda recently argued in favour of an Indo-European root for the three words.24 He proposes a derivation of -ambo- from h angu 7-,25 linked to the Latin word unguen, ‘fat, unguent’, and 2 further with the Rigveda an˜j-, ‘anointing’ (often used with the transferred sense of ‘adorning, praising’), which in combination with the preverb vi- would mean ‘embellish’. Janda’s hypothesis links the Greek YÆ (< 7ui-h2(a)ngu7o-) to a root meaning 17 Brandenstein (1936), 35–6. According to Brandenstein, YÆ would stem from Mycenaean and would have been aVected by Aegean–Tyrrhenian inXuence. This theory was rejected by Hester (1965), 354–5. 18 Versnel (1970), 24. 19 Versnel (1970), 33. 20 Cf. Pollux, On. 4.53, who includes YÆ ; Łæ Æ , and ØŁæÆ among ØÆ Æ ŒÆd fiTÆd ŒÆd fi ¼Æ Æ ŒÆd æÆ ŒÆd º ªØ æØ. 21 West (1974), 23. Cf. Degani (1988a), 1007; Bartol (1993a), 37–8; Brown (1997), 25. 22 Bartol (1993a), 37 and 89 n. 69, with further references. 23 Lennartz (2000a), 229 n. 18. 24 Janda (2000), 282–7; Rix (2001), p. 267. I am grateful to Jose´ Marcos M. Macedo for the references. 25 According to Janda (2000), 283, the root is not included in Pokorny’s Indogermanisches etymologisches Wo¨rterbuch (1994).
Ancient Theories of Iambos
119
‘Lobesrede’, i.e. ‘eulogy, praise’, quite the opposite of the literary tradition explaining iambos as invective. Although the etymology of iambos remains unresolved, there is a consensus that YÆ is to be compared to Łæ Æ ; ØŁæÆ ,26 and possibly also to YŁı .27 This connection links iambos to song or dance, possibly in a ritual context. Iambe is usually adduced to support a ritual origin, but as we shall see in Chapter 6, Iambe may have got her name from iambos rather than the other way round. In sum, etymological inquiries leave us with a few interesting hypotheses linking YÆ Ø to the realms of cult and song, but they are unable to establish the nature of the early iambos. Etymologies do not take us much further than the deWnition of iamboi found in Hesychius’ lexicon: ‘iamboi are certain rhythms and songs and a kind of poem’ (YÆ Ø: ÞıŁ Ø ; ŒÆd ºÅ ŒÆd . . . r ØÆ ).28 Most modern etymologies are based on ancient ones. However, ancient etymologies of iambos do not take us any closer to the origins or the nature of iamboi. They can, however, help us understand ancient ways of conceptualization of the genre, because they carry perceptions of its nature and function. Etymological explanations of iambos usually operate through derivation. According to the most common one, the terms iambos and iambeion stem from iambizein, which is further explained by ‘to abuse’ and ‘to vituperate’ (ºØæ E, ŒÆŒºª E, Hsch. s.v. NÆ Ç Ø; EM s.v. NÆ Ç Ø) and ‘to mock’ (åº ıÇ Ø, Photius, Lexicon s. v. NÆ Ç Ø). So in a fragment by the metrical scholar Hephaestion: ‘iambos (i.e. iambic rhythm) is named from iambizein, that is, loidorein (to abuse)’ (YÆ ŒÆº E ÆØ Ie F NÆ Ç Ø; ‹ K Ø ºØæ E; Fragmenta Hephaestionea p. 78. 7 ¼ schol. in Hermog. Rh G VII 982.15). Similarly in the grammarian Diomedes: ‘it is named out of iambizein, which means to abuse’ (appellatum est autem Ææa e NÆ Ç Ø, quod est maledicere; Diomedes, de poem., GL I p. 485, 26 West (1974), 23; (1981a), 80; Bartol (1993a), 37; Brown (1997), 13 and n. 3. See Brown (1997), 25–31, for a survey of the evidence for ØŁæÆ and Łæ Æ in relation to YÆ . 27 Gerhard (1914), 652; West (1974), 23; (1981a), 80. 28 Dickey (2007), 121 and 235 on r þ genitive meaning ‘a kind of’ in deWnitions. Cf. Hsch. ˜ 601 ºç Ø: r Å, which Dickey translates ‘a kind of plant’.
120
Ways of Seeing
11 V.), and the Etymologicum Magnum: ‘iambeion . . . from iambizein (to abuse)’ (NÆ E . . . Ie F NÆ Ç Ø; EM 463, l. 27). This derivation was most probably inspired by Aristotle’s ‘because in that metre they used to abuse each other’ (‹ Ø K fiH æfiø fiø N ØÇ Iºººı; Po. 1448b31), which derives iambos from iambizein, instead of the other way round.29 A variation of the derivation from iambizein consists in drawing both iambos and iambizein from Iambe (e.g. YÆ . . . Ie Å, ‘iambos . . . from Iambe’, Choerob. in Heph. 214.9; cf. Procl. ap. Phot. Chrest. 319b15 V.; NÆ Ç Ø: Ie Å B ºØ æı, ‘iambizein: from the abusive Iambe’, Hsch. Ø 44 s.v. NÆ Ç Ø; Å: . . .Iç w NÆ Ç Ø, ‘Iambe: from her [derives] iambizein’, Hsch. Ø 43 s.v. Å; cf. EM 463, 47 Kallierges).30 This derivation is implied by a few Hellenistic sources, but it is explicit only later in lexicographical as well as educational texts, such as Choeroboscus’ commentary on Hephaestion’s handbook on metre. I shall look into the evidence for Iambe in Chapter 6. A derivation of iambos from N Ø (‘to throw’ or ‘to shoot’) appears in a late handbook on the name of metres (Ie F N Ø, Gramm. Ambros. — æd B H H OÆ Æ p. 255 Nauck). A number of lexica associate iambos with thriambos (Łæ Æ ) as well as with the Latin triumphus. Hesychius mentions iambos in his deWnition of thriambos: ‘thriambos: a procession, a victory parade or a Dionysiac hymn, an iambos, (Łæ Æ : . K ØØ ŒÅ j ˜ØıØÆŒe o; YÆ , Hsch. s.v. Łæ Æ ).31 Photius in his Lexicon spells out the relationship implied in Hesychius’ entry, that some people considered thriamboi a synonym of iamboi (ŁæØ ı:
f N ı ØØ º ª, Photius Lexicon Ł p. 94, l. 25).32 29 Severyns (1938), vol. 2, 104–5, 109. See my treatment in Ch. 3, sect. 6.i. 30 See Fowler (1990) for a survey of evidence on the eponym Iambe found in the material related to Hephaestion and Choeroboscus. The chart on pages 18–19 is particularly useful. 31 The word YÆ Ø in this entry has been suspected of being corrupt. For a survey of linguistic literature about Łæ Æ and its connection to YÆ see Versnel (1970), 16–21. 32 Cf. Suid. s.v. Łæ Æ ; EM s.v. Łæ Æ . Naber (ad Phot. l.c., p. 283 A. 7) suggests that YÆ in Photius may be a corruption of ØŁæÆ , and this corruption may go back to Hesychius (Versnel (1970), 23). Lennartz (2000a), 229 proposes that YÆ mentioned in reference to Łæ Æ may simply indicate the metre used.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
121
An alternative to views of iambos as derived from iambizein or Iambe consists in postulating that iambos is composed of two words. Ancient lexicographers oVer three diVerent composite etymologies. The Wrst one, Ie F Ne Ç Ø (EM 463, l. 27), means either ‘from to speak while going’ or ‘from to speak an arrow’. Since from the point of view of meaning, ‘to speak while going’ does not make much sense, the Etymologicum Magnum expands on N as ‘arrow’: ‘from casting words as weapons’ (‰ ºÅ ºº Ø a º ª Æ, EM 463, l. 28, cf. [Zonaras] Ø p. 1082, l. 5). However, from the point of view of sound this etymology fails to account for the Æ of YÆ . This may have been the reason for a further etymology mentioned by EM, which does account for the alpha: ‘from saying ‘‘ia’’ ’ (Ie F YÆ Ç Ø, EM s.v. Å). This explanation through a common name for a cry oVers no link to any type of content or metre. Finally, as we shall soon see, the ideas of movement and shouting are combined in Diomedes’ ‘to go and to shout’ (NÆØ ŒÆd A, pp. 476–7). Even more powerful than derivation and composition, although based on them, legendary Wgures are adduced by ancient sources in order to explain the origins of iambos (the genre, the metre, the rhythm). Iambe is, of course, the most common eponym that the ancients mention, but the Iambe whom Demeter met is not the only Iambe we hear of. Choeroboscus tells of another Iambe, an old woman whom Hipponax met while she was washing clothes by the shore. Both Rosen and Brown independently put forward the hypothesis that Hipponax told about his encounter with this Iambe in a poem about his own poetic initiation.33 A third eponym, mentioned only by Diomedes, is the hero Iambos, a son of Mars who, according to Diomedes, used to go into battle casting his weapon with a shout. In the next section I shall expand on Diomedes’ life and work, as well as on his deWnition of iambos. Let us now look into his account of the etymologies of iambus. In a section on metre (de pedibus) that includes iambus, Diomedes seems to answer an implicit question about origins: ‘why is iambus so called?’ Such a question was explicit, for example, in a Byzantine commentary on the names of metres: ‘why was it called iambos?’ 33 Rosen (1988b); Brown (1988). See also Fowler (1990).
122
Ways of Seeing
(Øa KŒºŁÅ YÆ ;)34 To this question Diomedes provides three diVerent answers. We are familiar with the Wrst explanation, that iambus derives from Iambe, and with the second one, that links iambus to thriambos. The third one, including an eponymous hero Iambos, is absolutely unique: iambus, qui constat ex brevi et longa, ut dies, versui maledico habilis, Ææa e NÆ Ç Ø Graece nominatur. huius autem origo verbi ex nomine Iambes famulae Celei derivatur, quae, Cererem Wliam quaerendo ad Metaniram coniugem Celei delatam cum vidisset sollicitam, male tractavit. quidam autem ferunt iambum quasi thriambum a triumphatore Libero cognominatum esse. alii a Marte ortum Iambum strenuum ducem tradunt, qui cum crebriter pugnas iniret et telum cum clamore torqueret, Ie F NÆØ ŒÆd A Iambus appellatur: idcirco ex breve et longa pedem hunc esse compositum, quod hi qui iaculentur ex brevi accessu in extensum passum proferuntur, ut promptiore nisu telis iactum conWrment. auctor huius rationis35 Arctinus Graecus his versibus perhibetur, › ”Æ K Oº ªı ØÆ a æç æfiø ; Zçæ ƒ ªıEÆ
Ø Æ ÞØ ŒÆd PŁ b r åfi ÅØ. (Diom. de poem., GL I p. 476, l. 18–477, l. 20) Iambus, which consists of a short and a long [syllable] like ‘dies’ [¼ day], suitable for abusive [maledicum] poetry, is named from iambizein in Greek. The origin of this noun is derived from the name Iambe, servant of Celes, who, as she saw Ceres, exhausted and grieved, searching for her daughter at the house of Metanira, Celes’ wife, ill-used her. But others say that iambus, as thriambus, is named from the triumphant Liber [¼ Bacchus]. Others tell of a vigorous leader, Mars’ son, who, since he often went to Wght and twirled around his spear with a shout, was called Iambus from ‘to go’ and ‘to shout’. That is why, they say, this foot is composed of a short and a long [syllable], 34 Ch. XII, ˜Øı ı æd H, of the Appendix Dionysiaca (i.e. Schol. B libri V altera recensio cum Dionysii Thracis Arte Grammatica coniuncta, in app. Monc. (cod. Leidens. Voss. 76; cf. Dion. Thrax xix. xxiv 124)), included in Consbruch’s edition of Hephaestion, pp. 331–4. 35 My emendation. Keil has vibrationis, which is Schneidewin’s emendation. The manuscript tradition reads bibrationis (A), brationis (B), bracionis (M), and librationis (interpolated editions). Lexica translate it ‘brandishing’ ad hoc (Ernout and Meillet (1959), s.v.; Souter (1949), s.v.; Lewis & Short translates libratio as ‘hurling’, ad hoc). My emendation is consistent with the fact that Diomedes considers Arctinus the author of the explanation, not of the technique described.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
123
because those who throw a javelin move forward from a short onset into a long step, so that they strengthen the throwing with a quicker thrust to the javelin. The Greek Arctinus is considered the author of this account in the following verses: ‘Iambus stood a little while astride with foot advanced, that so his strained limbs might get power and have a show of ready strength.’36
Diomedes focuses here on iambus as a foot, which he characterizes as ‘suitable for abusive poetry’. In the Wrst etymology we Wnd a very compressed version of Iambe’s encounter with Ceres (a topic I will discuss later in Chapter 6), but instead of Iambe’s jests and mockery mentioned in the Homeric Hymn,37 we Wnd male tractavit, ‘treated badly’, which is consistent with Diomedes’ deWnition of the genre as carmen maledicum (see next section). Diomedes mentions a second opinion, according to which there is a connection between iambus and thriambus, both deriving from an epithet of Liber, ‘a triumphatore Libero’, ‘from the triumphant Liber’ (i.e. Bacchus, Dionysos; triumphator probably renders the Greek dithyrambos). Diomedes goes back to the explanation found in the Greek lexicographers, that thriambos was the name of a procession in honour of Dionysos (as well as his epithet) in which iamboi or some forms of jests in iambic metre were performed. For the third theory, that of a male eponym for the iambic rhythm, Diomedes is our only witness. He tells of Iambus, a son of Mars, who used to ‘go’ and ‘shout’ when hurling his weapon. The etymology is supported with evidence from ‘real life’: a short and a long step are needed for throwing a spear. Diomedes cites two lines by Arctinus in support of the explanation. If Arctinus did mention the hero Iambos in an epic poem, we do not know the context nor whether Iambos played any signiWcant role in the narrative. If the quotation is authentic, the fragment would be contemporary with Archilochus or Hipponax, and given that the word iambos seems to be a generic term already in Archilochus (fr. 215W, see Chapter 5), the name of the hero would be somehow connected to the genre. But are these verses part of The Sack of Ilium or rather a forged quotation, as some 36 Arctinus’ fragment was translated by Evelyn-White (1936), 525. The translation of Diomedes’ Latin is mine. 37 ll. 202–3: åº fi Å and the transmitted ÆæÆŒ ı’ or Heyne’s Œ ı’.
124
Ways of Seeing
scholars believe? Among editors of the fragmentary epic poetry, Bernabe´ includes the verses as fr. 7 of Arctinus’ The Sack of Ilium, but Davies believes the fragment to be spurious.38 The truth, however, may lie in neither of these two options. Welcker suggested that the words › ”Æ were an addition made by a grammarian or a scribe. Thus the two lines may well be by Arctinus while the proper name Iambos was probably already attached to them in Diomedes’ source. The lack of parallels for the story of Iambos suggests that it is a retrospective aition deriving from a handbook on metre or some other educational source originally in Greek. The resulting explanation would account for both content and form.39 It is, indeed, a powerful personiWcation for the aggressive elements that Diomedes or his source found characteristic of iambos both as a rhythm and as a carmen maledicum. Let us recapitulate. The ancients developed several hypotheses for the origins of the term iambos, based on derivation and composition, and even postulated eponymous Wgures based on etymology. Often our sources mention more than one possible etymology of iambos, thus reXecting the variety of ancient scholarship through contesting explanations. Each ancient etymology attempts to account for a speciWc aspect of iambos. Vituperation and ritual obscenity are at the base of derivations from iambizein. Aggression is implied in ‘casting words like weapons’, while both rhythm and aggression are implicit in Diomedes’ short and long steps. Narratives of origins based on etymologies crystallize generic perceptions in a metaphorical way. So Iambe of Eleusis accounts for the scoptic elements perceived as typical of the genre while hinting at ritual origins. Iambe of Hipponax accounts for the iambic or choliambic metre and for the perceived low origins of Hipponax’ work. Finally, the hero Iambos accounts simultaneously for the iambic foot as well as for the aggressive components of the genre. Such aitia based on eponyms embody generic perceptions in vivid images of past origins. All these notions, metaphors, and personiWcations, transmitted
38 Bernabe´ (1996), fr. 7, p. 92; Davies (1988), 165. Cf. Wilamowitz-MoellendorV (1921), 61 n. 3. West (1974), 23 n. 4, considers it Hellenistic or later precisely because it assumes that the term iambos has a metrical sense. 39 Bartol (1993a), 37.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
125
through commentaries, lexica, handbooks of metre, etc., were subsequently used both in education and in scholarship, undoubtedly shaping readers’ perceptions of iambos for generations. In the next section we shall look into the way in which etymology and eponymous hero are integrated by Diomedes, who witnesses one of the most encompassing deWnitions of the genre, and was, in turn, an author widely read in medieval and Renaissance Europe.
3. DIOMEDES To Wnd a fairly comprehensive discussion of poetic genres we have to turn to Diomedes’ Ars grammatica. Little is known about Diomedes. The book can be dated to the second half of the fourth century ce.40 His name and the dedication of the handbook to a certain Athanasius (p. 299) suggest that Diomedes’ Wrst language was Greek. The intended readers were probably those who wanted to learn Latin in the Eastern part of the Roman empire.41 Diomedes is a witness of lost Greek sources, though Wltered through Roman scholarship. Diomedes’ grammatical handbook is organized in three books according to the age of the students (GL I p. 299, 9–11).42 The third book, intended for advanced students, deals with metre and includes a section on the classiWcation of poetry, de poematibus (‘on Poems’). In dealing with the kinds of poetry (genera poematos) Diomedes follows the Alexandrian tradition spelled out by Dionysius Thrax (1st cent. bce) in the introduction to his own Ars grammatica (1.1), according to which Œæ Ø ØÅ ø, the ‘judgement of poems’ or ‘literary criticism’, is the Wnest part of the discipline.43 Kaster describes Diomedes’ collection of excerpts as a ‘mosaic’,44 and indeed, the third book is a compendium of several sources treating metre from various points of view. The piece entitled de poematibus, 40 Kaster (1988), 271. On Diomedes and his sources, see Dammer (2001), 19–24. 41 Desbordes (2007). 42 Kaster (1988), 271. 43 Cf. PfeiVer (1968), 268–9. Cf. Charisius, Gramm. 141.34 (¼ Accius fr. 8 Funaioli): nam quam varia sint genera poematorum, Baebi, quamque longe distincta alia ab aliis, nosce. 44 Kaster (1988), 148.
126
Ways of Seeing
exceptional in that it considers genres of poetry rather than of metre,45 also appears to be a patchwork of ancient scholarship. Diomedes sometimes mentions his sources: Theophrastus,46 Varro,47 and Suetonius.48 The general major division of poems into mimetic, diegetic, and mixed (p. 482, ll. 14–17) according to mode of presentation, a commonplace of late antique classiWcations of poetry,49 is, as we have seen in Chapter 3, section 3, of Platonic and Aristotelian-Peripatetic inspiration. Diomedes’ use of Greek words (which the manuscripts render in Latin characters) suggests that he is appealing to a readership whose Wrst language is Greek. Yet he includes Roman examples side by side with Greek ones, pairing, for instance, the Aeneid with the Iliad (p. 483, l. 6), Cicero with Aratus, and Lucretius with Empedocles (p. 483, ll. 2–3). He also includes exclusively Roman genres, such as the satura (p. 485, l. 30) and the fabula togata (p. 489, ll. 14 V.). It seems, therefore, that de poematibus draws on ancient scholarship, indirectly transmitting Hellenistic scholarship50 combined with Roman literary history, with Varro (de Poematis) and Suetonius as major sources.51 It is in Diomedes’ de poematibus that we Wnd a systematic deWnition of iambos as a type of poem: Iambus est carmen maledicum plerumque trimetro versu et epodo sequente compositum, ut 45 Diomedes’ de poematibus, an intriguing testimony of ancient literary criticism, has not received suYcient scholarly attention. Recent scholarship on Diomedes, such as the works of Castillo Herera (1990) and Dammer (2001), focus on grammar and leave poetics aside. No English translation of the section on poems is, to my knowledge, available. There is an unpublished Portuguese translation by Izabella Lombardi Garbellini. 46 On the Greek deWnition of tragedy, see p. 487, ll. 11–12. Diomedes probably knew of Theophrastus’ deWnition of tragedy indirectly from Varro. 47 On satura, p. 486, ll. 7–8; on tragedy, p. 487, l. 15, on comedy, p. 488, ll. 6–8; on the palliatae, p. 489, l. 18. Cf. Castillo Herera (1990), p. xiv. 48 On the origins of Roman comedy, p. 491, ll. 30–2. 49 Proclus ap. Photius 319a 1 V. (Bekker); Schol. Lond. (AE) Dion. Thrax p. 450.3 (Hilgard); Bede, De arte metrica, GL VII.25. Cf. Fa¨rber (1936), 3–4. For variants in such classiWcations of poetry, see Janko (1984), 128–9. Cf. Dahlmann (1953), 153–7. 50 Cf. Diomedes’ distinction among poetica ars, poema, and poesis (GL I p. 473, 16 V.); Dahlmann (1953), 118–27. 51 Dahlmann (1953); Kaster (1988), 271; Desbordes (2007). Von Steup, Usener, and Buchholz maintained that Diomedes’ de poematibus derives from Suetonius (see Goetz, RE 1.9 s.v. ‘Diomedes’).
Ancient Theories of Iambos
127
mala soluta navis exit alite ferens olentem Maevium. appellatum est autem Ææa e NÆ Ç Ø, quod est maledicere. cuius carminis praecipui scriptores apud Graecos Archilochus et Hipponax, apud Romanos Lucilius et Catullus et Horatius et Bibaculus. (Diom. de poem., GL I p. 485, ll. 11–17) Iambus is an abusive poem mostly composed of a trimeter and a following epode, as ‘May the ship which is leaving port carrying stinking Maevius have her sides and tackle assaulted by stormy waves.’52 It is named from iambizein, which means to abuse. Main writers of this [type of] poem are, among the Greeks, Archilochus and Hipponax, among the Romans, Lucilius, Catullus, Horatius and Bibaculus.
Diomedes deWnes iambus in terms of content and metre. He quotes an example, explains the etymology of the genre’s name and gives a short list of exemplary authors both Greek and Roman. Let us examine each of these elements. As far as content and function are concerned, carmen maledicum goes back to the Aristotelian psogos. When it comes to metre, however, instead of referring to the iambic trimeter as Aristotle does, he refers to it only as a component of the epodic strophe. The prominent role of the epodic metre in Diomedes’ deWnition of iambus is consistent with Quintilian 10.1.96,53 and is further emphasized by the citation from Horace’s Epodes (10.1–2). To be sure, all but one poem in the Epodes are composed in epodic combinations.54 Hence, iambus is seen from the perspective of Latin poetry, perhaps we should even say, from Horace backwards. This is natural, given that 52 Horace’s lines translated by Watson (2003), 338. Translation of Diomedes is mine. 53 Iambus non sane a Romanis celebratus est ut proprium opus, quibusdam interpositus: cuius acerbitas in Catullo, Bibaculo, Horatio (quamquam illi epodos intervenit) reperiatur (Quint. 10.1.96). ‘The Iambus has not much been practised by Romans as a distinct genre, but has been used by some in conjunction with other metres; its bitter quality may be found in Catullus, Bibaculus, and Horace (though in the last case a shorter line intervenes).’ Translated by Hollis (2007), 121. 54 The Wrst ten poems in Horace’s book of Epodes are composed in iambic trimeters followed by dimeters, the following six poems in a variety of systems, and the last poem is in stichic iambic trimeters; cf. Mankin (1995), 21–2.
128
Ways of Seeing
Diomedes is addressing students of Latin language and literature. Thus, Horace’s act of imitation and emulation of his models is in itself construed as prototypical of the genre. The very choice of Epode 10, which wishes a shipwreck on Maevius, an inverted propemptikon as it were,55 suggests that carmen maledicum is not only to be taken as a maledicent, i.e. an abusive poem, but most speciWcally as maledictory, a ‘curse-poem’.56 Thus the expression carmen maledicum describes not only the content but also the function of iambus as imprecation.57 Such nuance is not to be found in Aristotle. The derivation of iambus from iambizein (Ææa e NÆ Ç Ø) is common in the Greek lexicographical tradition, as well as in ancient commentaries and handbooks of metre. Although, as we have seen in the previous section of this chapter, Diomedes knows alternative etymologies, here he gives the more consensual derivation. The Latin translation maledicere renders the Greek compound ŒÆŒºª E, which has two possible interpretations: to vituperate and to curse. Among the authors mentioned as the most important writers of iambus, we Wnd two Greek (Archilochus and Hipponax) and four Latin ones (Lucilius, Catullus, Horace, Bibaculus), a proportion indicative of the general Roman inclination of the deWnition. One prominent absentee is Callimachus. This may be due to the fact that Callimachus’ iamboi were not part of educational curricula. Thus Diomedes skips the Greek Hellenistic iambos and moves from archaic Greek authors directly into Latin ones. How satisfactory is the list of Roman examples? The extant work of Lucilius, the forerunner of satire, certainly displays abuse, but although it includes a few books in iambo-trochaic metres (books 26–9) it does not include epodes. Catullus, even though he does refer to some of his poems as iambi, nonetheless tends to display abuse and malediction in ‘lyric’ metres, while he devotes his pure iambic 55 Mankin (1995), 182; Watson (2003), 18. On Horace’s Epode 10, see Mankin (1995), 182–92; Watson (2003), 338–45, with further references. 56 Watson (2003), 339. 57 Ovid’s Ibis exempliWes such carmen maledicum, the elegiac metre being part of a generic recusatio (Schiesaro 2001). The adjective maledicum is used again by Diomedes in his deWnition of satura, with the further speciWcation that it targets people’s vices: Satira dicitur carmen apud Romanos nunc quidem maledicum et ad carpenda hominum vitia archaeae chomoediae charactere compositum, quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius et Persius (p. 485, ll. 30–2).
Ancient Theories of Iambos
129
trimeters to other themes.58 Hence, we Wnd a split of ‘iambic content’ from ‘iambic metre’ in the extant Catullus, and no epodes at all. Horace’s book of Epodes has been characterized generically as ‘blame poetry’ but, following the Callimachean model, it is written in a variety of metres.59 As for Bibaculus, little has survived of his work that would help us understand the rationale of his inclusion, except that Quintilian includes him in a list of iambic poets along with Catullus and Horace (Inst. 10.1.96).60 In sum, the poets mentioned by Diomedes do not comply with the deWnition they come to illustrate. Rather than the result of empirical observation, the list of exemplary authors is a result of a major generalization. The poets are, thus, prototypes. An obvious consequence is that for Bibaculus, for example, we cannot assume that he wrote exclusively abusive poems in epodic metres, at least not more than Lucilius or Catullus seem to have done. A list of prototypical authors of a given genre cannot be used as a generic key for interpretation and reconstruction of lost works. Diomedes’ deWnition of iambos is rooted in the Greek tradition but it is so strongly inXuenced by the Roman re-formulation of the genre that it cannot help us understand how iambos was perceived in the archaic and classical periods. What Diomedes can do is enlighten us on the way ancient handbook deWnitions operate. As we have seen, content and metre appear as deWning features of the genre. Metre is given from the perspective of the history of Latin literature, which also responds to the expected audience of Diomedes’ handbook. Derivation of the genre’s name is conventional and alternative derivations including eponymous Wgures or protoi heuretai are omitted. The list of representative authors belongs to the educational curriculum, and is orientated towards the Roman iambus. Finally, the poets function as traditional prototypes and the extent of their claim to the genre is not called into question. 58 We Wnd self-referential uses of the generic term iambus in Catullus (36.5, 40.2, 54.6, and fr. 3, mostly for invective poems in lyric metres) and Horace (for his collection of Epodes, 14.7). Catull. 9 is an outstanding example of abuse in lyric metre (Sapphic stanza). 59 Harrison (2001). 60 Testimonies on Bibaculus’ iambi in Hollis (2007), 121–2.
130
Ways of Seeing
Diomedes’ deWnition belongs to what we may call the ‘educational paradigm’, in which genres are deWned for practical, didactical purposes. Such deWnitions identify a small number of necessary and suYcient features and leave out others. This ‘chunking’, as we have seen in Chapter 1, section 1, is typical of human categorization. It was as essential for school learning in antiquity as it is today. Thus, it reveals the school conceptualization of the genre, without exhausting the history of the pre-Hellenistic iambos. Diomedes’ deWnition also shows what Roman readers at an advanced level of their literary education must have thought a Greek iambos or a Latin iambus were. Diomedes’ Ars is one of the earliest books of grammar preserved from late antiquity. It circulated in the Carolingian renaissance and throughout the Middle Ages,61 and enjoyed several publications in the late Wfteenth and the sixteenth century after the Wrst 1476 Venice edition. One cannot but speculate on the eVect that Diomedes’ overview of ancient Greek poetry had on European humanists, not exclusively on the perception of iambos, but as a source of information as well as a model of literary classiWcation.62
4. PROCLUS (A P. P HOT. CHREST. 3 1 9 B ) The search for a deWnition of iambos in the context of a survey of poetic genres takes us to the Wfth century ce, perhaps earlier to the second century ce, through the testimony of Photius. Photius, a ninth-century oYcial and diplomat at the court in Byzantion, was patriarch of Constantinople from 858 to 867 and 61 Dammer (2001), 302–67 studies the reception of Diomedes’ Ars Grammatica with a focus on grammar. For a brief account of Diomedes’ inXuence on Western medieval and Renaissance poetic theory, see Curtius (1953), 438–41. Cf. Trinkaus (1966), 87–8. 62 According to Tigerstedt (1968), 18, Valla’s De Poetica (written between 1492 and 1494) was a crucial phase in the reception of Aristotle’s Poetics in the Latin west, before the publication of the 1508 Greek edition. Valla’s encyclopedia (De expetendis ac fugiendis rebus opus, published posthumously in 1501) included a section De Poetica (ch. 3 of the 38th book), in which Valla cited Diomedes’ classiWcation of poetry along with Aristotle and Horace. Diomedes’ de poematibus was thus considered part of the classical doctrine on genres. The humanist Bartolommeo della Fonte (De poetice ad Laurentium Medicem libri III, written between 1490 and 1492) was also acquainted
Ancient Theories of Iambos
131
died in exile around 893.63 A scholar of broad literate education, he summarized 386 books64 (147 secular, and 239 Jewish and Christian) in a collection that since the sixteenth century has been known as the Bibliotheca, i.e. the Library.65 Photius’ purpose, as he states it in the postface (Bibl. 545), was to focus particularly on books that are beyond the common study, that is, non-core authors of the curriculum. This is consistent with the space he devotes to non-standard texts and textbooks, many of them now lost. Proclus’ Chrestomathia is one of them. Among classicists the Chrestomathia, or Handbook of Literature,66 is best known for the information it gives on the epic cycle, and for its classiWcation of poetic genres. The latter has been most inXuential, particularly since Smyth followed it for reviewing Greek lyric genres in the introduction to his 1906 edition.67 In order to assess the value of Photius’ summary of the Chrestomathia two questions are crucial: who was Proclus and what sources did he use? The identity of the author of the Handbook has been a matter of controversy for the last hundred years. Proclus is traditionally with Diomedes’ de poematibus, and used it particularly for the classiWcation of genres (Trinkaus (1966), 87–9). Della Fonte’s deWnition of iambic poetry conXates Diomedes’ with other sources, oVering interesting expansions on the poets’ lives: De iambico poemate. Iambicum autem nunc metrum subtexetur quoniam video interdum a lyricis usurpatum. Est autem ad maledicendum vehementer accommodum. Eius quidem inventor Parius fuit Archilochus in socerum suum Lycamben et sponsam Neobolem, quae ut infamiam eius carminis evitaret, laqueo se suspendit. Hipponax quoque Ephesius, qui sexagesima olympiade Xoruit, Bupalum Wctorem tanta horum carminum amaritudine distrinxit ut credatur eum ad laqueum compulisse. Apud Latinos autem Furius Bibaculus Cremonae ortus anno ante Cimbricum Marii triumphum iambos scripsit. Catullus quoque Veronae oriundus anno ante natum Salustium inter iambicos ponitur. Sed et Horatius ipse iambos edidit. Quem sane pedem alternis aptum sermonibus et populares vincentem strepitus et fabulis agendis percommodum comici ac tragici scriptores usurpavere (Trinkaus (1966), 118). 63 On Photius’ life and the circumstances in which he produced the Bibliotheca, see Severyns (1938), vol. 1, 1–12; Treadgold (1980), 1–4, 16–36; Wilson (1983), 93–111. 64 Treadgold (1980), 5–7. Treadgold arrives at a Wgure of 386 books, as against the 279 books that Photius said he had read. 65 The title Myriobiblon is the one used in Byzantine literature, whereas Bibliotheca was coined in the 16th cent. (Treadgold (1980), 4). 66 On the title of Proclus’ book see Severyns (1938), vol. 2, 65–9. Severyns suggests rendering the title as ‘Manuel abre´ge´ de litte´rature’ (Severyns (1938), vol. 2, 68). 67 Smyth (1906), pp. xvii–cxxxiv, esp. at xxv; Ford (2006a), 278 n. 5.
132
Ways of Seeing
identiWed as Proclus Diadochus, the Wfth-century Neoplatonist,68 although many believe that he was in fact a second-century ce Stoic grammarian.69 As for the sources of the Handbook, it is believed that it preserves material on poetic genres going back to the Wrstcentury bce scholar Didymus, who wrote a æd ºıæØŒH ØÅ H, ‘on lyric poets’,70 a book comprising much of his predecessors’ work in Alexandria. It has also been claimed that the Chrestomathia preserves material that goes back to the enigmatic Apollonius › Nªæç, ‘the classiWer’, who was librarian in Alexandria after Aristophanes of Byzantion (early 2nd cent. bce).71 However, Apollonius seems to have dealt with musical modes rather than poetic genres.72 In spite of these uncertainties, the Chrestomathia remains our closest testimony to a systematic attempt at genre classiWcation in Alexandrian scholarship, possibly through Didymus as intermediary. How faithful or literal is Photius’ summary of Proclus’ Chrestomathia? This is a crucial question in assessing the value of the summary as an indirect representative of Hellenistic scholarship. Since the codex opens with the expression ªŁÅ KŒ, ‘it was read from’, which Treadgold takes as typical of sections including excerpts instead of summaries,73 it seems that we have a compilation of phrases taken literally from the text that Photius read. Proclus’ Handbook was divided into four parts, of which Photius summarized only the Wrst two (322a39–40). The Wrst part deals with the theory of styles. There is a brief section on krisis poematos, in which two major groups are distinguished: narrative and dramatic, the former including epic poetry, elegy, iambos, and melos. As with other genres,74 rather than giving a single deWnition, Proclus 68 Longo (1995), with further references. 69 Schmid (1894), 161; Hillgruber (1990); Russell (1995); Rutherford (1995), 356. 70 Smyth (1906), pp. xxiv–xxv; Severyns (1938), vol. 2, 114; PfeiVer (1968), 184. Severyns traces Proclus’ entry on elegy back to Didymus, and part of the material on lyric genres particularly to Didymus’ æd ºıæØŒH ØÅ H. Similarly, Smyth (1906), p. xxv. Cf. Rossi (1971), 74; Grandolini (1999). 71 Wilamowitz-MoellendorV (1922), 108; Rutherford (1995), 356 n. 8; (2001), 101. 72 PfeiVer (1968), 184. 73 Treadgold (1980), 6. See also pp. 40–3, 51, 88–92, for the extent of literalness in codices 234–80. 74 Cf. Proclus’ contrasting views of the paean at 320a21–5, with Rutherford (1995) for the hypothesis of Proclus’ depending on earlier, perhaps 4th cent. bce scholars, for the views on nomos, dithyramb, and paean.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
133
compiles several views. Let us look into the section on iambos, where we distinguish three diVerent accounts. [1.] ººa ªaæ ŒÆd e YÆ
ŁÆØ b Kd ºØæ Æ e ƺÆØ : ŒÆd ªaæ ŒÆd e NÆ Ç Ø ŒÆ ØÆ ªºHÆ ºØæ E º ª: ½2: ˇƒ b I Ø Å Ł æÆÆØ ; ¨æfi
Å e ª: Æ Å çÆ ; B ˜Å æ IØøÅ Kd fi B B ŁıªÆ æe ±æƪfi B; æ ºŁ E æd c ¯º ıEÆ Kd
fi B F ª º fiø ŒÆºıfi Å æfi Æ ŒÆŁÅÅ ŒÆd Ø Øø åº ıÆ ø N ªºø Æ æƪƪŁÆØ c Ł : ½3: ‚ØŒ b › YÆ e b ƺÆØe Kd
H N ł ª ŒÆd ÆØ ªæÆçø › ø ºª ŁÆØ: K d Ø Kº ÆÆ K ÆE ŒÆŒºª ÆØ e æ; KŒ EŁ e NÆ Ç Ø N e æ Ç Ø e B ıÅŁ Æ KŒ E; u æ Ie H ŒøØŒH e Œøfiø EŁÆØ. ø b ØÅ Æd æå ºå › —æØ ¼æØ ŒÆd Øø Å › æªØ X; ‰ ØØ; Ø; ŒÆd HÆ › ¯çØ: z › b æH Kd ˆªı; › b K ı F ÆŒ ; HÆ b ŒÆ a ˜Ææ E XŒÆÇ . (Procl. ap. Phot., Chrest. 319b15 V.) [1.] He says that in the past the iambos was composed for abuse [loidoria], for they used to say iambizein, according to a gloss,75 for loidorein [i.e. to abuse]. [2.] Some say [that iambos derives] from a certain servant Iambe, of Thracian origins. They say that when Demeter was in pain because of the capture of her daughter and went to Eleusis, Iambe moved the goddess to laughter through some jokes [chleuasmata], as she was seated on the stone now called Agelastos [i.e. unlaughing]. [3.] But it seems that in ancient times the iambos was equally used by writers of abuse and praise, but because some [poets] used the metre to excess for ill-speaking, thence iambizein turned into hybrizein by habitual use, as from the komikoi [i.e. comic poets] [derives] komoideisthai [ridicule].76 Poets of iamboi: Archilochus of Paros was the best, also Simonides of Amorgos who was, according to some, Samian, and Hipponax of Ephesus. The Wrst of these Xourished in Gyges’ time, the second in the time of Amyntas of Macedon, and Hipponax under Darius.
Although this is a section on iambos as a kind of poetry, following the sections on epic poetry and elegy, we do not Wnd here a deWnition of the genre. On the contrary, the Wrst part of the section speaks about iambos as metre, the second, about the derivation of the term iambos, while the 75 Ferrante (1957), 33 follows Severyns in taking ŒÆ ØÆ ªºHÆ as referring to a dialect, see below. 76 The translation is mine.
134
Ways of Seeing
third goes back to the iambic metre, and explains how it came to be associated with abuse. It is possible that Photius recorded only three diVerent views on the origins of the term iambos, leaving a deWnition out. The Wrst explanation resorts to a linguistic argument; accordingly NÆ Ç Ø and ºØæ E would be synonyms. Underlying is the assumption that iambos derived from iambizein. As we have seen, this explanation is typical of ancient lexica and educational sources.77 Thus, content and function (ºØæ Æ) of iambos are ultimately argued by association with the verb NÆ Ç Ø. This explanation goes back to Aristotle’s view of early iambos as mainly abusive,78 perhaps through a Peripatetic source. The second view derives iambos from the eponym Iambe, and gives the account of her encounter with the mourning Demeter and her making the goddess laugh with her mockery. This is a common etymological explanation, as we have already seen. Given that the detail of the stone named Agelastos appears in Apollodorus (Bibliotheca 1.29–30), Hesychius, the scholiast to Aristophanes (In Eq. 785c11), and the Suda (s.v. ƺÆE, 49 Adler) but not in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (192–204), it seems that Proclus or rather his source was not following the Hymn, but a source in which the etymology through the eponym Iambe was developed into an aetiological story. This explanation belongs to the educational realm. A third view is introduced by ØŒ , ‘it seems’. That this is Photius’ view can be safely discarded, because he would have marked his opinion, as he does when he introduces his own comments on the hymenaios with Kªg b rÆØ (321a24). It may well be Proclus’ opinion, which he mentions last. But it could also be an earlier scholar’s hypothesis, to which Proclus had no objection (note the use of ŒÆ ÆåæÅ ØŒH to signal Proclus’ evaluation of a certain view of paean as erroneous, 320a24–5). For convenience let us refer to this view as ‘Proclus’ third hypothesis’. This hypothesis is radically opposed to the Wrst one in that it assumes that iambizein derived from 77 In view of the availability of this explanation I render ŒÆ ØÆ ªºHÆ as ‘according to a certain gloss’, rather than ‘according to a certain dialect’. Ferrante (1957), 33 oVers the two possible interpretations but favours ‘in un certo dialetto’. Similarly Severyns (1938), vol. 2, 105, nevertheless pointing out that we do not know to what dialect Proclus might be referring. 78 Severyns (1938), vol. 2, 105.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
135
iambos. The hypothesis implies the reconstruction of an historical process: that in early times iambos (i.e the iambic metre), was used not only for blame (ł ª) but also for praise (ÆØ), but because the metre was frequently used for ill-speaking (ŒÆŒºª Æ), iambizein (NÆ Ç Ø) came to be identiWed with hybrizein ( æ Ç Ø).79 According to this hypothesis the sense of abuse is not inherent to the term iambos but was eventually acquired by customary usage (ıŁ ØÆ). Proclus’ third hypothesis diverges from the Wrst two in that it goes beyond plain etymology. The reference to psogos and epainos seems to make direct reference to the Aristotelian binary classiWcation of genres and his view of iambos, thus undermining Aristotle’s division of poetry by the characters of poets and subjects. Moreover, by stating that originally the iambic metre was used for the two macro-genres of Greek literature, praise and blame, Proclus or his source refutes the classiWcation of iambos within the category of psogos. As for the origins of the metre, Aristotle had claimed that iambeion was thus called ‘because in that metre they used to abuse each other’. Proclus, on the contrary, says that at an early period the iambic metre was used for a variety of topics and functions. This is the reverse of Aristotle’s view that the iambic metre was used for abuse in the past, while in his own time it was perceived as rather neutral. As he does with other genres, Proclus closes his treatment of iambos with a short list of ‘best poets’,80 mentioning Archilochus, Semonides, and Hipponax, of whom Archilochus is the best (¼æØ ). However, unlike the reference to the epic cycle in the section on epos, and unlike the reference to Philitas and Callimachus in the section on elegy, the iambic section includes only the canonical poets as we deWned them in Chapter 2, with Archilochus as the core. The reference to poets includes brief chronological details intended to provide dating through a correlation with other historical facts, namely the rule of Gyges, Amyntas, and Darius. In the section of epic poetry Photius mentions that Proclus gives detailed information about the family, homeland, and what is special about each poet. It
79 Proclus’ third hypothesis is consistent with Janda’s etymology, cf. sect. 2 above. 80 Cf. ØÅ Æd Œæ Ø Ø for the epic poets 318b18, and IæØ Ø for elegiac poets, 319b11.
136
Ways of Seeing
is therefore probable that Proclus’ section on iambos also included such biographical details. Proclus’ third hypothesis has puzzled me for many years. The view of a development from neutral content (i.e. suitable for both praise and blame) into abuse through customary use, the very deWance of the binary opposition of praise and blame, and the rejection of the wellknown etymologies has an extraordinarily modern Xavour. This hypothesis appears to be an attempt to reconcile the traditional association of iambos with speciWc contents, such as kakologia and loidoria, with the frequent absence of such contents from the works of the archaic iambographers (and perhaps with the use of the iambic trimeter in tragedy?). Whoever proposed this hypothesis of an original iambos used for both praise and blame was taking into account a broad corpus of iambic poetry, a corpus in which abuse was often absent, such as the ‘received iambos’ we deWned in Chapter 2. If this hypothesis goes back to Hellenistic scholarship through an intermediary such as Didymus, we may conclude that some Hellenistic scholars faced the same problem that we face today, namely, the lack of consistency between the traditional deWnition of iambos and the traditional corpus that circulated under that generic label. In sum, Proclus’ third hypothesis stems from a conceptualization of genres that is diVerent from the Peripatetic one. In fact, it is one of the very few traces we have of an alternative to the Aristotelian view. The missing link is to be found in Stoic and Epicurean literary theories that refuted the Aristotelian view of genres.
5 . IAMBOS IN HELLENISTIC GENRE THEORIES Traces of the thriving world of literary criticism of the third and second centuries bce are discernible in the charred papyri of Philodemus of Gadara’s On Poems ( æd ØÅ ø). The rolls, found at the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, destroyed in 79 ce, help Wll in some of the gaps in our knowledge of post-Aristotelian poetic theory. The Weld of Hellenistic literary criticism is in a continuous state of movement, as modern techniques enable more readings and new editions appear. In recent years Janko and Asmis, among others, have made major
Ancient Theories of Iambos
137
contributions to our understanding of Epicurean and Stoic approaches to poetics.81 Even more recently Fantuzzi and Hunter have given a succinct account of both Philodemus’ views on genres and of those he criticized, and have shown how they imbricate both Hellenistic and Roman poetic practice.82 Indeed, in On Poems Philodemus discusses and refutes poetic theories, mostly those of Stoic scholars, whom he calls ‘the critics’ (ƒ ŒæØ ØŒ ),83 and as fragments of On Poets books 1 and 4 indicate, the argumentation involved an interest in genre theory.84 Although Philodemus’ polemic style does not oVer a coherent presentation of his own views, his criticism gives a glimpse of sophisticated generic views otherwise unknown. An account of Stoic and Epicurean poetics is, needless to say, beyond the scope of this work. However, an outline of the views on poetic genres that we begin to gain from Philodemus, even if provisional, will help in understanding the intellectual milieu in which an alternative view of iambos, like the one we found in Proclus’ third hypothesis, could have arisen. Some fragments of Philodemus’ On Poems suggest that he may have rejected rigid generic distinctions.85 Greenberg (1955), following Gomperz (1909), suggested that On Poems 4 was aimed precisely at attacking a strict division of poetry into genres, as found in Aristotle.86 Richard Janko has shown that book 4 of On Poets challenges the very basis of the Peripatetic system of genres, as it was presented in the fragmentary Aristotelian treatise On Poets.87 Indeed, in a rather lacunose passage of On Poems 4 (207 col. IV),88 81 Book 1 of Philodemus, On Poems was edited by Janko (2000), book 2 by the late Mangoni (1993) (there is an English translation in Armstrong (1995b)). On the poetics of Philodemus and the scholars he criticizes see the contributions of Asmis (1990), (1991); Janko (1991); Asmis (1992a), (1992b), (1992c), (1995a), (1995b); Sider (1995); Armstrong (1995a); Pace (1995); Asmis (2004); Obbink (2005); Rispoli (2005). 82 Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 449–61. See also Harrison (2007), 2–10. 83 For a discussion on the kritikoi see Porter (1995) and Asmis (2004), with further references. 84 On Philodemus’ interest in the nature of literary genres, see Obbink (1995), 208 with n. 62; cf. Asmis (1992b). 85 Greenberg (1955), 125–9, 175–6; Janko (1991); (1995), 84; Armstrong (1995a), 217. 86 Greenberg (1955), 129; Janko (1991), 25; Hammerstaedt (1997), 109. I have not seen Gomperz, T. (1909), ‘Philodem und die aristotelische Poetik’, Wiener Eranos: zur fu¨nfzigsten Versammlung deutscher Philologen and Schulma¨nner in Graz, 1–7 (Vienna). 87 Janko (1991). 88 B Ø ø KŒ e ÆØ ŒÆ½d KŒ E; N F Ø ½Eå : ¯½: . . . . . . . . . . Æı½: : ÆØ Å½:: ½. . . : IŁæøØŒø½ æÆ æå½ ºfØgå ½ ŒÆd æØ ç½Å
138
Ways of Seeing
Philodemus mentions Archilochus and Aristophanes in what seems to be a refutation of his adversary’s contraposition of comedy and iamboi to epos and tragedy by object of representation (Ø EŁÆØ).89 Furthermore, a fragment from P.Herc. 1074 (fr. f. col. iii Sbordone)90 points out the irrelevance of character for the reception of poetry. According to this testimony, Greek audiences admire poets such as Archilochus, Hipponax, and Semonides, who wrote about bad characters (ÅæE æØ) and bad actions ( æd ÅæH æƪ ø), provided the writing was aesthetically attractive. As Rosen has pointed out, the passage’s assumptions are revealing of the way audiences responded to comic genres.91 It also shows that the distinction of the ‘good and serious’ from the ‘bad and laughable’ was held irrelevant for the evaluation of poetry by Philodemus or his opponent. In accordance with his formalist views, Philodemus separated morality from the evaluation of poetry.92 In Aristotle’s Poetics the dichotomy of character (chrestos/poneros) converged with a rhetorical dichotomy of discourse (praise/blame) in a binary classiWcation ½ ½ØBŁÆØ æ ؽ; z ½› b æå ºå½ P i f gØBŁÆØ Ø Ø½ÆŁ ; › rlAlpha½æØ ç½Å ÆNå½ÆØ ª s a Æ; ½ª º ø½ ŒÆ Æı e —Æø ØÅı—æe HØ rÆØ æƪøØ Æ c Œøø<Ø> Æ ŒÆd ½f N ı; bæ z ½Ç ÅØ q: ˜½Bº s ‹ø½ ŒÆ Æ
æ½ ØÅfg ƽØ; Ka ıŁÅ<Ø> Ø [c.9–10 çŒºÆ (On Poems 4, P.Herc. 207 col. IV Janko). See Janko (1991), 13 for textual notes and English translation. A slightly diVerent edition with Italian translation is in Hammerstaedt (1997). 89 Hammerstaedt (1997), 110. Cf. Janko (1991), 25. The text of On Poems IV has been published by Janko (1991) and partially by Hammerstaedt (1997). The two scholars diVer as to whether Philodemus asserted or denied that Archilochus and Aristophanes represented (Janko (1991), 13, 21) or not (Hammerstaedt (1997), 106) more human (IŁæøØŒø æÆ) actions. A new edition by Janko is expected. 90 Iºº ø ø æå ºå KŁÆÆÇ ŒÆd e ÆŒ Æ ŒÆd e Åø Å; ŒÆd H Ææ ˇæøØ ŒÆd ¯Pæ Ø Ø ŒÆd E ¼ººØ ØÅ ÆE ØÆ; ÅæE æØ æØŒ Æ ŒÆd æd ÅæH æƪ ø ª ªæÆÆ; ŒÆd ŒÆ ªºÆ åæÅ E æØŒ Æ; ŒÆd æd åæÅ H IŒıÆ æƪ ø o ø K Ø ; ŒÆd Å c b IªÆŁe º Æ e K æªÆ ; ‰ çÅ; ›E i ØÆ ÅÆ º ÅØ Ææ ( æø j ÆP e æŁB ÆØ; åÆ b ¼Łæø Åæe ŒÆd fg KªŒÆ Æ ØÆÆ Æ åæÅ ; c ŒÆººø Æ Æ o ø . . . . . (P.Herc. 1074, fr. f. col. iii Sbordone). See Sbordone (1976), 212–13 for image and Italian translation, Asmis (1995b), 172 for English translation and textual notes, Rosen (2007a), 263–6 for insights on the reception of comic genres. 91 Rosen (2007a), 264. 92 See also Asmis (1995b), 172–3. Philodemus seems to have rejected instruction as poetry’s goal, cf. Asmis (1995a), 31.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
139
of genres. This dichotomy, having a moral base, established also a hierarchy of genres and authors. In Philodemus’ eyes there was no such dichotomy and therefore no hierarchy. This is in opposition to the very foundations on which Aristotle based his history of generic development as a natural result of the moral stance of poets and their subject matter. The notion that all genres are alike, to put it in Asmis’s words,93 can also be deduced from a fragment of On Poems 1. In that book Philodemus reports and refutes the views of other scholars, the ‘critics’ or the ‘euphonists’,94 the most prominent of whom was Crates of Mallos.95 The euphonists asserted the supremacy of good sound—euphony, which could be achieved by any poet regardless of genre.96 In the following fragment Crates (following Asmis,97 although Janko ascribes it to Pausimachus of Miletos) mentions two poles of Greek poetry, tragic poets and iambic poets, Sappho and Archilochus, in order to make the point that they compose in a given genre not by nature but by convention. ƒ ª½aæ NÆ Ød æƪ،a ØFØ; ŒÆd ƒ æƪfiøØd ƒ ºØ NÆ ØŒ; ŒÆd Æç ØÆ NÆ ØŒH Ø E; ŒÆd æå ºå PŒ NÆ ØŒH: u ç Ø b ½P ÞÅ NÆ Øe ½j ¼ºº Ø ØF Æ ª; Iººa øØ; ç Ø b ‹ Æ N c Pª B çøc ŒÆd æ Å ŒÆd N KÆæ
ıÆ ƒ Å Æd K OÇøØ<>; ‹ Æ K Æ d ª Ø Æ › ÆP e º ª ØÆ < > ÅØ; ŒÆd K HØ s ÅøØ ŒÆd HØ ŒÆŒH. (Philodemus, On Poems 1, col. 117, ed. Janko)98 For iambic poets compose tragic poems [tragika] and tragic poets compose iambic [iambika], and Sappho composes some poems in an iambic manner [iambiko¯s] and Archilochus not in an iambic manner [ouk iambiko¯s]. Hence, one must not say that by nature he is an iambic poet or composes another kind [of poem], but [that he does so] by convention, and that [poets compose] by nature whenever in their wording they hit upon sound that 93 Asmis (1992a), 162–3. 94 On the ‘critics’, see Porter (1995); Janko (2000), 124–6; Asmis (2004), 5–8, with further references. 95 On Crates’ fragments on poetics, see Asmis (1992a); Broggiato (2001), pp. xxvii–xxxiii. In her edition of Crates’ fragments Broggiato does not include some of the fragments that Asmis ascribes to him (cf. Broggiato (2001), p. xxxi, n. 55). 96 Asmis (1992a), 168–9; (1992c), 414. 97 Asmis (1992a), 162–9. 98 ¼ P.Herc. 460, 8, tr. B, fr. 20, col. 1.6–24, Sb.
140
Ways of Seeing
is noble, Wrst, and adapted to all things, and whenever in every kind of poem the same rational account extends, both in what is well and badly composed.99
The critic with whom Philodemus is arguing mentions canonical poets and genres in order to refute the notion that there is a natural, inherent link between poets and the type of poetry they produce. By iambic poets he is probably referring to the representatives of the genre, although Archilochus is a useful example because he was known to be active in other genres, such as elegy. The word iambika involves no reference to metre, as the parallelism established between the various genres and poets suggests. That the iambic poets composed tragika should not be taken to mean tragedy as a genre, but rather ‘tragic-like stuV’, or even ‘in a tragic manner’. Similarly, that tragedy writers composed iambika should be taken as ‘iambic-like stuV’, probably referring to a type of content, as the parallel with Sappho suggests. To be sure, in the case of Sappho, the fact that she criticized named individuals in some of her poems accounts for ‘some poems in the iambic manner’ (see Chapter 2, sect. 2). As for Archilochus, some of his poems are certainly ‘not in the iambic manner’. This is true not only for elegy, but also for iambic and trochaic fragments that show no traces of vituperation. However, a reading of poetry that goes beyond the dominant features of genres is able to distinguish those features that are usually neglected for the sake of classiWcation per genus et diVerentiam, namely, vituperation in Sappho, serious poetry in Archilochus. Abuse seems to be taken for granted as a dominant feature of iambos as a genre, but family resemblances are also noted. Furthermore, the euphonists rejected the importance of traditional generic conventions based on subject matter and metre because, in their view, genre was a matter of convention, not nature.100 Now, if the link between poet and genre is conventional (by nomos and not by physis), and if a typically iambic poet such as Archilochus composed non-iambic material as well, the result is an implied criticism of an essentialist view of genres. 99 Translated by Asmis (1992a), 162, except for the final words after ‘extends’. 100 On Poems 1, col. 77 Janko; On Poems 4, col. v.15–25 Jensen; On Poems 5 col. xxv. 1–30 Mangoni; ibid. col. xxvi.ii–xxvii.i Mangoni. Cf. Asmis (1992a), 162–3; Pace (1995); Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 457–8; Janko (2000), 157–60 for Philodemus’ refutation. On the notion of ŁÆ Æ, ‘conventions’, which may be an equivalent to genre, see Janko (2000); Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 458; Rispoli (2005).
Ancient Theories of Iambos
141
A literary genre would therefore involve a number of components which may appear in other genres as well. This view, as Asmis and others have said, involves a tacit acknowledgement of the contamination of genres.101 In another fragment Philodemus presents the view of an opponent (whom, again, Asmis identiWes as Crates and Janko as Pausimachus) that diction is what makes a poem good, that all genres share the same goal, and therefore it is possible to compare poets from diVerent genres. Ø Ø b P; çÅØ; P Ka æå ºå j ¯PæØ Å j ¼ºº Øa ˇæøØ ı ººø ; i (ŒÆ æı c KÆØıÅ I ØÆæÆ ØŁH ºØ: P ªæ; ‹ Ø Øçæ ı æƪøØ Æ ŒÆd YÆ ŒÆd e K º; Øa F fıg ı ƺF K ( æı ªı Å c Å E; F ºı ½æå Æ d ª Ø ÆP
: AÆ ªaæ IŒºıŁ E c K ÆP E ºØ ŒÆºH j ø j çƺø ıªŒ EŁÆØ. (Philod. On Poems 1, col. 77) He says it will make no diVerence, not even if we compare Archilochus or Euripides or someone else with Homer, if only we juxtapose the praised diction of each. For just because tragedy, iambic, and lyric diVer from epic we will not refrain from comparing poets of diVerent genres, since the goal is the same for each genre. For it follows that all diction in them is inserted beautifully, or badly, or indiVerently.102
The euphonists held that in evaluating poetry what matters is sound and diction, which goes for all genres equally. Sound is the standard according to which poetry is diVerentiated and by which a poem must be judged. If genres are conventional and euphony can be achieved independently of genre, it follows that (to put it in Fantuzzi’s words) genres were ‘not completely discrete’ and their boundaries were permeable.103 Although Philodemus himself rejected the euphonists’ view (cf. On Poems 1, fr. 83),104 he appears to have acknowledged that ‘genres were not completely discrete’.105 It is unfortunate that the views of Philodemus (representing Epicurean poetics) and the euphonists (representing Stoic poetics) on the 101 102 104 105
Asmis (1992a), 168; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 459–60. Translated by Asmis (1992a), 168–9. 103 Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 459. Asmis (1992a). Cf. Asmis (1992c), 414. Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 459.
142
Ways of Seeing
conventional nature of literary genres have not come down to us as systematic theories. There is much hope that the work being done by Philodemus scholars, particularly in Janko’s forthcoming editions of books 3 and 4, will shed light on these matters too. Yet the fact remains that the sophisticated approaches to genres inherent to Stoic and Epicurean poetics did not make it into handbooks. The reason may lie in the resulting ‘Xuidity’, that did not suit school requirements. Indeed, thinking in an educational context, as we have seen, requires simpliWcation, taking what is dominant as general, namely iambos as abuse, Archilochus as a poet of abuse. Did any of the euphonists sketch a literary history along these lines, as Fantuzzi suggests?106 It is certainly attractive to think that a branch of Hellenistic scholarship produced a formalist literary history that went beyond moral assumptions, one in which genres were not taken in a teleological line of development. But this remains in the realm of speculation. What emerges from the lava of Herculaneum are hints that there were alternatives to the all too dominant Aristotelian view of literary genres. In these other theories, the category of genre was considered a result of convention rather than nature, with morality playing no role in the classiWcation. The status of iambos in a literary system thus conceived is quite radically diVerent from the one found in Aristotle’s Poetics, which was in turn inherited by educational sources. Where moral concerns were deemed irrelevant there was no proper hierarchy of genres, from which it follows that iambos was not perceived as a low genre. Moreover, it seems that Stoic and Epicurean poetics were able to acknowledge family resemblances among genres, namely, that iambic elements were to be found in a range of genres and authors. How they would have deWned iambos we cannot tell, and although traditional school deWnitions seem to have been called into doubt, traditional generic categories remained in use. A Wnal point on the matter of editions of iambic poetry: as we have seen in section 1 of this chapter, some Pergamene scholars were interested in the work of Hipponax, and I suggested the possibility that both Archilochus and Hipponax were edited in Pergamon. If 106 Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004), 460.
Ancient Theories of Iambos
143
Crates (or some other Stoic scholar from that school) can be credited with a non-essentialist view of genres, in which shared features among genres were acknowledged, and if my hypothesis of a Pergamene edition of Archilochus that was not organized by metre is allowed, then we may conclude that such a hypothetical edition was consistent with a broad view of iambos, one that did not consider iambic metre and abusive content as deWning features, but was able to think beyond the dominant features, in terms analogous to family resemblances.
6. ANCIENT THEORIES OF IAMBOS : T H REE PA RA DI GMS In this chapter I have surveyed various theoretical approaches to iambos from the fourth century bce to the Wfth century ce. Aristotle, as we saw in Chapter 3, does not provide a deWnition of the genre, but my analysis suggests the lines along which he conceptualized iambos and its place in the literary system. Aristotle was part of a subtle but steady concern with the work of the iambic poets that later included some of the key literary Wgures of Ptolemaic Alexandria. Evidence suggests that there was an interest in the iambopoioi, particularly Hipponax, among Pergamene scholars as well. The content of the scholarly work done at the major centres of learning in the Hellenistic period is for the most part lost, but we have indications that there were editions of the works of the iambic poets, commentaries, and biographical monographs. Stoic scholars, among them Crates of Mallos, who were later criticized by Philodemus of Gadara, devoted some of their work to the Weld of poetics, including the issue of the nature and distinctness of literary genres. Such works did not permeate the contents of literary education throughout antiquity. Thus, most of the information about iambos that we have from the Hellenistic period on consists mainly in etymological speculation, characteristic of ancient scholarship and suitable for educational purposes. Ancient etymologies, no less than modern ones, attempt to account for the most typical aspects of iambos, namely iambic metre and vituperative content. At times these perceptions of iambos are taken a step further and an eponymous Wgure is postulated: the
144
Ways of Seeing
two Iambes (the one that met Demeter and the one that met Hipponax, see Chapter 6, sect. 3) and the hero Iambos. The latter appears only in the late antique grammarian Diomedes, who transmits information that goes back to Hellenistic poetics through Varro and Suetonius. Diomedes’ deWnition of iambos, very much orientated to the Roman re-elaboration of the genre, leads to later views. Given the impact that Diomedes’ de poematibus had on Renaissance poetics, it is clear that his deWnition of iambos as a carmen maledicum had a long-lasting eVect on later European literary education. DiVerent was the eVect of another text carrying information on iambos, the Chrestomathia of Proclus abridged by Photius, which seems to have remained circumscribed within the Weld of classical scholarship. In the Chrestomathia we found three diVerent views on the origins of the term iambos. The Wrst two are consistent with known ancient etymologies. The third oVers the hypothesis that in early times iambos was used for both praise and blame poetry, but that frequent use of the metre for ill-speaking caused the identiWcation of iambizein with hybrizein at a later stage. This hypothesis detaches the early iambos from a speciWc content and function. In addition, it provides an historical explanation as to how iambos became so strongly identiWed with abuse: through customary usage. Proclus’ third hypothesis is probably an excerpt of a theory on the development of iambos that is consistent with a perception of genres as conventional and not entirely discrete, certainly detached from moral concerns. His reconstruction tacitly refutes the basis of Aristotle’s generic system, as well as the hypothesis of ritual origins implied in Aristotle’s ‘because in that metre they used to abuse each other’. Proclus’ third hypothesis, which probably goes back to the second or Wrst century bce, would be an isolated one, had we not retrieved from the scrolls of Herculaneum information about Stoic and Epicurean approaches to literary genres. This is not to establish a precise genetic connection between the two, but we can at least identify the type of intellectual environment in which Proclus’ third hypothesis would have been at home. Of course, such sophisticated approaches to genres are for ‘high’ scholarship, while most of the material available to us is of a less adventurous nature. As teachers and researchers in contemporary universities we are familiar with the situation. Generic categories are the organizing principle of many introductory courses
Ancient Theories of Iambos
145
in national literatures. We spend a great deal of eVort teaching our students the deWnitions of epos, tragedy, comedy, etc., just to go on and blur the generic borders in seminars on speciWc genres or on literary theory. This is completely understandable: at introductory levels, genres are useful cognitive tools for mapping out a new and complex literary landscape. For that we need genres to be discrete. A similar need was felt in ancient education, where generic categories make a schematic grid for organizing knowledge through generalization and prototypes. However, genres thus deWned have necessarily fuzzy boundaries. Scholars of the sort that Philodemus argues with seem to have gone precisely into those places where generalization did not work, focusing on the gaps left by previous (mostly Peripatetic) theories. The notion that iambos was not only psogos from early times and, consequently, that it could not have originated from psogos (thus implicitly rejecting most ancient speculations about origins and etymology) is an attractive ancient hypothesis that has too long been neglected. The following chapters of this book will show that ancient evidence on iambos up to Aristotle’s time is consistent with this view no less than with the traditional one. Three main ‘ways of seeing’ the genre of iambos emerge from our survey of ancient scholarship. Each of them derives from the manner in which the very category of genre is conceived. We may well adopt Thomas Kuhn’s term and speak of three diVerent paradigms that condition what the ancients were actually looking for when thinking about genres and how they interpreted what they found.107 Let us then recapitulate by describing the three generic paradigms within which the ancients thought of iambos from Aristotle to late antiquity. Aristotelian Paradigm. In the Poetics Aristotle proposes that genres can be classiWed per genus et diVerentiam in a way similar to classiWcation in the biological world. This approach to genres corresponds to the classical view of categorization that we described in Chapter 1, while focusing on dominant features and prototypes. For the classiWcation of genres Aristotle uses a priori binary oppositions that have a moral, 107 The term paradigm is used by Kuhn in two senses, the Wrst of which refers to ‘the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community’ (Kuhn (1970), 175, in the 1969 postscript to the original 1962 edition).
146
Ways of Seeing
social, and rhetorical basis. The result is not only a grid, but also a hierarchy. In this system iambos is placed on a low level of the hierarchy, mainly because it lacks the qualities of an overall structure, and because humour (to geloion) is conceived as better than invective (which is humour at the expense of an individual). Conceptualized by means of a dominant feature that Aristotle terms psogos, the origins of iambos are postulated in improvised exchanges of abuse, possibly but not necessarily, of a ritual nature. The iambic trimeter would have got its name, iambeion, from the original situation of abuse, which leaves open the question as to how it came to be the metre most appropriate for dialogue in Attic drama. Educational Paradigm. As far as we can tell, ancient education adopted the Aristotelian paradigm of genres. Diomedes’ and Proclus’ surveys of genres indicate that a need was felt to Wll in the theoretical grid with actual, historical genres. The result is a closed system of genres that appear to be discrete. Thus, genres tend to be deWned by the dominant features of metre and content, as well as by prototypical examples, whereas fuzzy areas are, for didactic purposes, ignored. This way of thinking about genres crystallized in the practice of proposing etymologies that reXect the dominant features or an alleged original performance scenario. The most popular etymology was the eponym Iambe, which provided an explanation of ritual origins. Contesting etymologies were often recorded whereas variant deWnitions were not. In this didactic and thus simpliWed approach to genres, iambos is deWned as the combination of abusive content and iambic metre, which in practical terms leaves out much of what the editions of the prototypical authors included. Stoic and Epicurean Paradigms. The limited information about the Stoic and Epicurean approaches to genre allows only for very cautious conclusions. It seems that strict divisions of genres were rejected, and that some Stoic scholars put forward a conventional, non-essentialist view of genres. There was an awareness of elements that go beyond the dominant features, both of genres and of prototypical authors. Thus, it seems that family resemblances of some sort played a role, as features typical of certain genres were noticed in others (such as iambic elements in Sappho). Ethical a priori assumptions were left aside and thus there was no hierarchy of genres based
Ancient Theories of Iambos
147
on moral premisses. Accordingly, iambos was not low in a hierarchy of genres. In addition, the positive response of audiences to iambos among other comic genres was acknowledged. Proclus’ third hypothesis seems to share the assumptions of this paradigm. Accordingly, the iambic metre would have been used originally for both praise and blame and only through custom did it become mainly associated with abuse. The theory Proclus reports about the origins of iambos avoids taking the dominant as essential and therefore as historically original. From this outline of the diVerent paradigms two Wnal implications suggest themselves. First, regarding the relation between the concept of iambos as a genre and the corpus of iambic poets. DeWnitions of iambos in the Peripatetic tradition (Wrst two paradigms) cover the iambic corpus that in Chapter 2 we termed the ‘narrow iambos’, whereas the conceptualization of iambos implied in texts from the third paradigm take into account a broader corpus that is probably coextensive with what I deWned as the ‘received iambos’. Since the latter is reconstructed from explicit ancient references, we may conclude that non-Peripatetic views survived precisely in those ancient references and citations, that is to say, in testimonies of practical use, whereas Peripatetic views were dominant in ancient theory. Second, regarding ancient views on the origins of iambos. The eponym Iambe is consistent with Aristotle’s hypothesis of origins in the exchange of abuse, but we have no indication whatsoever that Aristotle made a connection with Iambe. On the contrary, given that Aristotle thinks of iambos mainly in a male-dominated context (Pol. 1336b, see Chapter 9, sect. 3), it seems that the aetiological interpretation of Iambe as eponym of iambos emerged after Aristotle and was popularized by educational texts. In the third paradigm, as deWning features such as abuse are downrated and hypotheses of early use of the metre for praise and blame emerge, it seems that a theory of ritual origins is implicitly rejected.
This page intentionally left blank
Part III Iambos and Iambeion: A Study of Terms in Context
This page intentionally left blank
5 Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)1 The term iambos appears for the Wrst time in extant Greek literature in a fragment of Archilochus: ŒÆ h N ø h æøºø º Ø. (Archil. 215W) I do not care about iamboi or pleasures.
As we shall see in Chapter 7, the term iambos emerges again in our sources in the Wfth century bce, in Damon, Epicharmus, Herodotus, and Aristophanes. Given that Archilochus is (so far) our only witness for the term in archaic literature, it is not surprising that the interpretation of the fragment functions as a stage on which the main hypotheses about the nature of the early iambos make their Wrst entrance. Indeed, a great deal of scholarly eVort has been invested in the interpretation of this fragment, an interpretation often dependent on general hypotheses about the genre of iambos. Long ago scholars abandoned the notion that iamboi in Archilochus 215W referred to poems in iambic metre. Instead, the word is regarded as a generic term deWned by content, function, or occasion of performance.2 Indeed, the most radical change in the interpretation of the fragment was introduced by Dover in his inXuential 1964 article. He suggested that Archilochus could have used the term iamboi ‘with reference to all 1 This chapter is a slightly modiWed version of my article ‘ ‘‘I do not care about iamboi’’ (Archil. 215W)’, published in Archilochos and his Age. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades (Paroikia, Paros, 7–9 October 2005) (Ó Dora Katsonopoulou) (¼ Rotstein 2008). 2 Compare the reference to Archil. 215W in the 1940 LSJ entry for YÆ , ‘iambic verse’, with the 1996 LSJ Suppl. ‘poem written in iambic, trochaic, or epodic metre, esp. of a scurrilous or satiric nature’.
152
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
the forms of poem which he composed, their common characteristic being not their metre or language but the type of occasion for which they were composed—their ‘‘social context’’ ’.3 Dover’s hypothesis was later applied by West to the interpretation of iamboi in our fragment: ‘They are surely more than just verses, they are an occasion’,4 which he deWned as some sort of public entertainment with ritual origins. West’s attractive hypothesis prompted several scholarly reactions. Brown, for example, pointed out that there is no other evidence supporting the suggestion that iambos was used as a name for an occasion.5 Consequently he attached to the word what he took to be the more usual meaning of ‘songs’: ‘If YÆ Ø and æøºÆ are to be seen together, we may conjecture that YÆ Ø were songs performed at the occasions designated by æøºÆ .’6 Bartol, on the other hand, has suggested the possibility that the term iamboi denotes rather the content of the members of the literary genre.7 Finally, in a recent study Kantzios takes iamboi in our fragment to stand for ‘poetry in general’.8 It was Bowie who pointed out the main reasons why the term iamboi in Archilochus 215W can be interpreted in more than one way. First, because the term need not be self-reXexive, that is to say, it does not necessarily refer to the poem it comes from; and second, because we cannot tell whether h N ø h æøºø, ‘neither iamboi nor pleasures’ is a disjunction of similar or of dissimilar elements.9 As is regularly the case with fragmentary poetry, Wnding out more about the original poem from which Archil. 215W comes may shed light on the meaning of the term iambos.10 The fragment is known to us exclusively through a citation by Johannes Tzetzes. The context in which Tzetzes presents the quotation usually provides a basis for the interpretation of the line.11 3 Dover (1964), 189. 4 West (1974), 25. 5 Brown (1997), 48–9. 6 Brown (1997), 49. 7 Bartol (1993a), 32. 8 Kantzios (2005), 4. 9 Bowie (2001a), 2–3. 10 An erotic context was suggested by a parallel with Horace (Petti, nihil me sicut antea iuuat / scribere uersiculos amore percussum graui, Hor. Epod. 11.1–2, cf. also adesp. el. 8W). Immisch, Lasserre–Bonnard, and Rodriguez Adrados connected Archil. 215W to Archil. 196W (Iºº › ºıØ º, t ÆEæ , Æ ÆØ Ł), thus making desire ( Ł) the reason for Archilochus’ rejection of YÆ Ø and æøºÆ . This interpretation became obsolete after the publication of Archil. 196aW, to whose beginning 196W almost certainly belongs (cf. West (1974), 25; Degani (1988a), 1006). 11 e.g. Kantzios (2005), 3–4.
Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)
153
Ø E ‹ æ ŒÆd o æ æå ºå KŒ E çB I ºçB ªaæ Çıª ت Æ fi B ŁÆºfi Å, æØÆŁH Tæ ªæç Ø c Łºø ‹ºø ºªø æe f ØÇ Æ ıªªæÆØ KªŒ Ø ‘ŒÆd h N ø h æøºø º Ø’ (Alleg. Hom. Il. 24.125–34, ed. Boissonade) He [i.e. Achilles] does what that Archilochus did later; for when his sister’s husband was drowned at sea, he mourned intensely, refusing to compose at all and saying to those who were pressuring him to devote himself to his compositions: ‘and I have no interest in iambi or amusements’.12
Tzetzes compares Achilles’ grief for Patroclos in Il. 24 to the pain that Archilochus experienced for the loss of his brother-in-law. He quotes our fragment as expressing Archilochus’ answer to those compelling him to write in spite of his grief. Tzetzes adds that after toiling with tears, in vain (‰ b ÆŒæø ŒŒÅŒ Å, NæŒ Ø , l. 130), the poet uttered the following elegiac couplet: h Ø ªaæ ŒºÆ ø NÆØ h ŒŒØ Łø æøºa ŒÆd ŁÆº Æ Kçø. (Archil. 11W) for I shall cure nothing by weeping nor shall I make matters worse by pursuit of pleasures and festivities.13
We know from Plutarch (Quomodo Aud. Poet. 12.33a–b), one of Tzetzes’ favourite authors, that the second fragment quoted by Tzetzes, namely Archil. 11W, has to do with Archilochus’ loss of his brother-inlaw. If Tzetzes is right and fr. 215W relates to the same event, then Archilochus is the speaker of the line and both iamboi and terpolai are something he would not have rejected if he were not grieving. Moreover, the term iamboi would refer to Archilochus’ own literary activity. Yet the question arises whether Tzetzes—or his source—has Wrst-hand knowledge of the whole poem to which fr. 215W belongs, or whether an intermediary was used. All in all, Tzetzes does not seem to be truly acquainted with Archilochus’ poetry. In fact, besides 12 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 227.
13 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 87.
154
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
this passage, Tzetzes quotes Archilochus only once again, as an example of two rare words that appear in Lycophron’s Alexandra.14 The opposite seems to be the case for Hipponax. Tzetzes quotes him more than forty times, which suggests that he was acquainted with a book of Hipponax’ poems.15 The contrast between Tzetzes’ numerous quotations of Hipponax and his meagre quotations of Archilochus suggests more than personal preference; it probably points to Tzetzes’ limited actual knowledge of Archilochus’ work. The case of Plutarch’s quotation of Tzetzes’ second fragment, Archil. 11W, is diVerent. Plutarch cites the lines after referring to the manner of Achilles’ rejection of his mother’s exhortation to abandon his grief over Patroclos’ death and Wnd a solace in pleasure instead: ºØ ÆYåØ Æ Œ E e ıƒe ¨ Ø Kç a Ææƌƺ E ŒÆd IÆØfi Œ Ø IçæØ ø: Iººa ŒI ÆFŁÆ E ÆæÆŁ øæ E c F åغºø KªŒæ ØÆ, ‹ Ø B ´æØÅ KæH ŒÅ æe ÆP , Ng c F ı
º ı c Kªªf sÆ P Ø H H æe I ºÆıØ P u æ ƒ ººd Ł E e ç º IæÆ fi Æ ŒÆd Ææƺ ł Ø H ŒÆŁÅŒ ø, Iººa H b H Øa c ºÅ Iå ÆØ, ÆE b æ Ø ŒÆd ÆE æÆ Åª ÆØ K æª K Ø: ºØ › æå ºå PŒ KÆØ E ÆØ ºı b Kd fiH Iæd
B I ºçB Ø çŁÆæfiø ŒÆ a ŁºÆ
Æ, Yfiø b ŒÆd ÆØØfi A æe c ºÅ å ŁÆØ ØÆ : ÆN Æ Ø º ª åıÆ YæÅŒ h Ø ªaæ ŒºÆ ø NÆØ h ŒŒØ Łø æøºa ŒÆd ŁÆº Æ Kçø. [¼ Archil. 11W] (Plutarch, Quomod. Aud. Poet. 33a–b) Again, it appears most shameful in Thetis when she incites her son to pleasures and reminds him of love. But even there we must contrast Achilles’ mastery of himself, that although he is in love with Briseis, who has come back to him, and although he knows that the end of his life is near, yet he does not make haste to enjoy love’s pleasures, nor, like most men, mourn for his friend by inactivity and omission of his duties, but as he refrains from such pleasures because of his grief, so he bestirs himself in the business of his command. Again, Archilochus cannot be commended, because while grieving over his sister’s husband, who was lost at sea, he is minded to Wght against his grief by means of wine and amusement; he has, however, alleged a cause that has some appearance of reason, 14 Tzetz. in Lyc. 91 (ii.50.23 Scheer) ¼ IEG2 I test. on fr. 178. 15 Degani (1984), 80–3.
Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)
155
‘for I shall cure nothing by weeping nor shall I make matters worse by pursuit of pleasures and festivities’. [¼ Archil. 11W]16
Given that Plutarch was most probably acquainted with Archilochus’ poems from his own reading,17 we can be conWdent that he had Wrsthand knowledge of the poem to which Archil. 11W belongs. Tzetzes, on the contrary, having limited knowledge of Archilochus’ work, joins two fragments written in diVerent metres (Archil. 215W is an iambic trimeter, Archil. 11W is an elegiac) in an account of the poet’s reaction to a single event. Had the two fragments been written in the same metre, we would probably not hesitate to assign them to the same poem. However, if metre prevents us from doing so, what is the rationale behind Tzetzes’ treatment of them as somehow belonging together? That rationale should be traced back to Tzetzes’ source. Since Plutarch and Tzetzes refer to the same locus in Iliad 24 and compare Achilles to Archilochus,18 it seems that both authors used commentaries on the Homeric text which provided the comparison as well as the quotation(s). One can think of two diVerent reasons for Archil. 215W to be joined to Archil. 11W in that source. The Wrst is lexicographical: since æøº, appearing in both Archil. 215W and 11W, is a Homeric hapax (Od. 18.37), the two quotations could have survived together in a lexicographical source and later been expanded within the commentary tradition by a biographical or moralizing account. A second possibility can be found in Plutarch himself. Before quoting Archil. 11W Plutarch advises teachers who have to deal with an immoral statement by an author to quote verses 16 Plutarch is translated by Babbitt et al. (1962), vol. 1, Archilochus by Gerber (1999a), 87. The Greek text of Archil. 11W follows West’s edition. 17 Bowie (1997), 101, 106–8. 18 The Homeric text (Il. 24.128–32) reads as follows:
Œ Ke åæØ Oıæ ŒÆd Iå ø c ÆØ ŒæÆ Å Å h Ø ı h PB; IªÆŁe b ªıÆØŒ æ K çغ
Å Ø ª Ł P ªæ Ø Åæe fi Å, Iºº Ø XÅ ¼ªåØ Ææ ÅŒ ŁÆ ŒÆd EæÆ ŒæÆ ÆØ.
‘My child, how long will you devour your heart with weeping and sorrowing, and take no thought of food or of the bed? Good is it for you even to sleep with a woman in love. For, I tell you, you will not yourself be long in life, but even now does death stand hard by you and resistless fate’ (translated by Murray and Wyatt (1999), vol. 2).
156
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
of the same author that contradict that immoral statement.19 Plutarch oVers examples of such contradictory statements on the same subject by Homer, Pindar, Sophocles, and Menander. Plutarch himself does not apply this ‘moral correction’ to Archil. 11W, probably because his purpose is to blame Archilochus (PŒ KÆØ E ÆØ) in contrast to his praise of Achilles. It is possible, however, that the two fragments found their way to Tzetzes (perhaps via an intermediate commentary) through a gnomologium (similar, for example, to Stobaeus’ section æd Łı) in which they showed Archilochus’ two attitudes towards grief, or alternatively, towards pleasure:20 fr. 215W would reject pleasure because of grief, whereas fr. 11W would accept pleasure as a cure for grief. In sum, it seems very likely that Tzetzes found the single line of Archil. 215W in a commentary on Il. 24, a lexicographical remark on Od. 18.37, or a gnomologium. If, as it seems, Tzetzes did not have Wrst-hand knowledge of the whole poem to which fr. 215W belongs, his comments should be handled with caution. First of all, although grief or mourning may be at stake, Archilochus is not necessarily the speaker of the line. Given the dramatic character of some archaic iambic poetry (e.g. Archil. 19W and 122W), the line could have been spoken by a character, and not by the poet in propria persona. Secondly, the speaker need not be rejecting the composition or performance of iamboi by himself, but could refuse to join a performance of iamboi as a spectator. Let us now look into the meaning of iamboi from the point of view of the construction in which it is set. Since the word iamboi is co-ordinated with terpolai, we should Wrst ask: what is the meaning of terpolai and how are they related to iamboi? 19 ‹Æ YæÅ ÆØ b I ø PŁf P ººı ÆØ, ÆF Æ E E IººÆå ŁØ æe
PÆ NæÅØ ÆP H I ÆÆØæ E, c IåŁı fiH ØÅ fi B Åb åƺ Æ Æ Iºº K XŁ Ø ŒÆd a ÆØØA º ªØ (Quomod. Aud. Poet. 20e). ‘But whenever anything said by such authors sounds preposterous, and no solution is found close at hand, we must nullify its eVect by something said by them elsewhere to the opposite eVect, and we should not be oVended or angry at the poet, but with the words, which are spoken in character and with humorous intent’ (translated by Babbitt et al. (1962), vol. 1). 20 Grief and pleasure are also linked in another elegiac fragment by Archilochus, namely 13W (see below).
Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)
157
The word æøº, as I noted above, is a Homeric hapax (Od. 18.37) and it appears once again in Archil. 11W. In addition, it is twice attested in the Theognidea (984W and 1068W). In Homer, it refers to a Wght between Irus and Odysseus, who is disguised as a beggar. In Archil. 11W it is linked to ŁÆº ÆØ, festivities, while in Theognis it refers to banqueting and singing.21 Later lexicographers usually gloss æøº as æłØ, ‘enjoyment’,22 and Tzetzes most probably understood æøº in this way. In fact, æłØ and
æøº seem to have been equivalent well before the Hellenistic period. A close examination of the contexts of æøº in Homer and in the Theognidea may help in understanding what the root
æ- suggests beside ‘pleasure’. The encounter between Irus and Odysseus in Ithaca, at the beginning of Odyssey 18, is a humorous scene.23 The two beggars exchange threats and insults. There are several references to food and greed (Od. 18.1–2, 26, 44–9, 53–4, 114), that will later be typical of comic genres such as Parody and Old Comedy. The big but pusillanimous Irus gradually gets scared and his exit, dragged by the foot by Odysseus, is hilarious. The Wght concludes (Od. 18.100, 111) in the same way it actually began (Od. 18.35, 40): with the suitors’ laughter. The word æøº appears in a speech by Antinous that marks the transition from the verbal quarrel to the physical one: t ç ºØ, P Ø æ ØF K åŁÅ, ¥Å æøºc Ł e XªÆª K HÆ › E ŒÆd - æ Kæ Ç IºººØœ å æd ÆåÆŁÆØ Iººa ı º tŒÆ. (Od. 18.36–39) 21 The word æøº, attested again in Apoll. Arg. 4.1116, is connected with PçæÅ as in Theog. 1068, and with a strongly gnomic Xavour. æøº was frequently used by late hexametric poets (Oppianus, Halieutica 1.18, 1.56, 1.524, 1.671, 1.698, 3.7, 3.581, 4.7; Cynegetica 1.59, 2.37; Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica 1.736, 4.305, 4.464; Nonnus, Dionysiaca 7.54, 10.346, 12.169, 15.51, 18.148, 21.288, 41.209). This suggests that the Homeric hapax was perceived in late antiquity as an epic word. 22 Hesychius s.v.; Suid. s.v.; Scholia in Luc. 24.16.2. The scholia to Oppianus gloss
æøº as åÆæ, æłØ, and PçæÅ (Schol. in Opp. Cynegetica 1.59.1; Schol. in Opp. Halieutica 1.28.1, 1.56.1, 1.524.1, 1.524.5, 1.671.1, 1.698.1, 3.581.1). 23 Both Nagy (1979), 230 and Rosen (2007a), 137–41 view a connection of this scene with psogos.
158
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Friends, never before has such a thing come to pass, that a god has brought sport like this to this house. The stranger there and Irus are provoking one another to blows. Come, let us quickly set them on.24
The uninvited guests, Odysseus and Irus, display their ugliness and voracity and Wnally engage in a boxing match, and in so doing provide entertainment for the suitors.25 In this speciWc instance terpole is the pleasure associated with such improvised and unexpected entertainment, which includes a Wght—a comical counterpart of a heroic combat or of athletic wrestling. While the display of aggression is entertaining for the audience (i.e. the suitors), verbal abuse may but need not be a necessary constituent of the amusing situation to which Antinous refers as terpole. Let us turn now to the Theognidea, where terpole appears in two passages referring to youth (l Å): ˙ E K ŁÆº ÅØØ ç º ŒÆ ÆŁ ŁÆ Łı , Zçæ Ø æøºB æª KæÆ Øa çæÅØ. ÆrłÆ ªaæ u ÅÆ Æææå ÆØ IªºÆe l Å P ¥ø ›æc ª ÆØ TŒı æÅ, Æ¥ ¼ÆŒ Æ çæıØ æı K IæH º æø, ıæç æøØ æ ÆØ øØ.
(983–8W)
Let us give up our hearts to festivity, while they can still sustain pleasure’s lovely activities. For the splendour of youth passes by as quickly as a thought. Not so swift are charging horses which, delighting in the wheat-bearing plain, carry their spear-wielding master furiously to the battle toil of men.26 ¯ l ÅØ æÆ b f ›ºØŒØ ıå o Ø, ƒ æ H æªø K æ ƒ Ø b ŒøÇ Æ ÆPºÅ Bæ I Ø
ø Pb y Ø ¼ºº KØ æ
æ IæØ Mb ªıÆØ : Ø ºF ŒÆd ÆN;
æøºc ØŒAØ Æ f PçæÅØ. (1063–8W) In youth you are free to sleep all night with an age-mate and satisfy your craving for lovemaking; you may carouse and sing with a piper. No other 24 Translated by Murray and Dimock (1995), vol. 2. 25 Fehr (1990), 185–7. 26 Translated by Gerber (1999b), 317.
Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)
159
pleasure compares with these for men and women. What are wealth and respect to me? Pleasure combined with good cheer surpasses everything.27
In the Wrst instance (l. 984) an occasion is explicitly mentioned: K ŁÆº ÅØØ, that is, ‘festivities’28 or more speciWcally, with SchmittPantel, ‘sacriWcial meals’.29 This is the occasion linked to æøº by Archilochus in fr. 11W ( æøºa ŒÆd ŁÆº Æ) and to æł ÆØ in fr. 13.2W.30 In Theognis ‘the lovely activities of pleasure’ ( æøºB æª KæÆ Ø), appear as something to be enjoyed by a group (see plural E ŒÆ ÆŁ ŁÆ, ‘let us devote our hearts’). In the second instance (l. 1068) an occasion is implied: æøº along with PçæÅ sum up the pleasures of youth mentioned at the beginning: sleeping with a coeval (f ›ºØŒØ ıå o Ø), singing and revelling (ŒøÇ Æ ÆPºÅ Bæ I Ø). Thus the two instances of the word æøº in the Theognidea are associated with social activities that evoke the symposion.31 Hesiod (Th. 206 and 917, cf. Sc. 273), Sophocles (e.g. Aj. 1200, 1202) and a Wfth-century inscription from Attica (CEG n. 95, iii) use æłØ in contexts similar to those found for æøº in Theognis: the pleasures of the symposion, the joys of life and youth. Is there anything in common between the exchange of insults and blows in the Odyssey and the sympotic scenes of the Theognidea? At Wrst sight there seem to be similarities: plenty of laughter from the Wght’s spectators in the Homeric passage, and a cheerful mood among the symposiasts at the Theognidea. However, a closer look reveals that the two have even more in common. In the Homeric passage the suitors are gathered for a banquet before nightfall, and the event involves dance and song.32 The similarity to the occasion evoked by the Theognidean passages is apparent.
27 Translated by Gerber (1999b), 329. 29 Schmitt-Pantel (1990), 22. 30 Archil. 13.1–2W:
28 LSJ s.v. I.
Œ Æ b Æ — æ Œº h Ø I H ç ŁÆº ÅØ æł ÆØ Pb ºØ.
31 Kantzios (2005), 3 n. 8. 32 Cf. Od. 18.44 V., the meat is on the Wre; l. 151, Odysseus pours a libation after the meat is set before him; ll. 304–6, the suitors dance and sing and make merry; and ll. 405–9, the end of the feast.
160
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Therefore, in the light of both the Homeric and Theognidean passages, as well as of Archil. 11W and 13W, I suggest the following working-deWnition of æøº as ‘pleasure or entertainment in a context of leisure related to commensality or conviviality’.33 I would like to stress that terpolai are not occasions,34 but the pleasure associated with certain occasions. Terpole is pleasure instantiated in various forms of commensality, either symposia, religious festivals, or public meals as civic institutions.35 These occasions may include not only food and drink, but also music, poetry, and dance, and occasionally, as in the Wght between Odysseus and Irus, some form of verbal abuse. With our working deWnition of terpole in mind, let us go back to Archil. 215W and the construction in which we Wnd iamboi and terpolai. The disjunctives h . . . h . . . , ‘neither . . . nor . . .’, are used in early Greek literature in two types of so-called ‘polar expressions’.36 The Wrst type coordinates members that are close in meaning and are thus complementary, for example: Å h Ø ı = h PB thinking neither of food nor of the bed (Il. 24.129–30) h ŒÆ XØ Æ h ı who knew neither justice nor laws
(Theognis 54W)
The second type coordinates contraries that together cover a single category or express a general notion, for example: h MºØ . . . h ºÅ neither sun . . . nor moon (Il. 17.367) h N Iªæc . . . h K º nor to the assembly . . . nor to war
(Il. 1.490–1)
h ŒÆŒH . . . h IªÆŁH neither of the base . . . nor of the noble (Theognis 60W) 33 Rotstein (2002), 34. 34 As suggested by Brown (1997), 49. 35 Cf. Sanskrit trp-, ‘satiate’ (I am grateful to one of the anonymous OUP readers for the reference). See the introduction to Ch. 9 for a treatment of symposia and other forms of ancient Greek commensality and conviviality with further references. 36 Ku¨hner–Gerth, vol. II, 243–4 and 288. On polar expressions, see Lloyd (1966), 90–4.
Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)
161
Are YÆ Ø and æøºÆ a coordination of the Wrst type, i.e. semantically close, or of the second type, i.e. opposites?37 We should consider Wrst in what sense iamboi could be opposite to terpole, understood as ‘pleasure or entertainment in a context of leisure related to commensality or conviviality’. One could think of ‘lamentation’ or ‘tedium’ as the opposite of terpole, taken more speciWcally to mean ‘rejoicing’ and ‘amusement’ respectively. But there is no support whatsoever for iamboi meaning either lamentation or tedium. Taking terpole strictly as ‘pleasure’, its opposite would be ‘something painful’ or ‘something annoying’.38 Of course, one aspect of iamboi, namely blame, can indeed be annoying, even painful, for the targets of abuse (if they are real people), but from the point of view of an audience it is just fun.39 Finally, terpole appears to be a ‘carefree activity’ in the Theognidea, where it is strongly contrasted to the seriousness of ºF , ‘wealth’, and ÆN, ‘respect’ (l. 1068). Thus, we can think of its opposite as any ‘committed activity’ or ‘serious pursuits’. This possibility deserves attention, given that paraenetic elements as well as military narrative are arguably part of the ‘received iambos’.40 It would be compatible with the notion that the term iambos covered a range of content, including historical narrative and political pieces.41 Moreover, given that opposites coordinated by the disjunctives h . . . h . . . often cover a single category or concept, as ‘sun or moon’ and ‘assembly or war’ do, the overarching category of ‘neither iamboi nor pleasure’ would be that of leisurely activities, either with a serious or an amusing purpose. I Wnd this line of interpretation attractive, but nevertheless far-fetched. As the examples cited above indicate, coordinations of opposites are usually self-evident, like ‘night and day’, whereas an
37 The question follows a suggestion put forward by Bowie (2001a), 3. 38 Dover (1964), 186 n. 2: ‘neither YÆ Ø (as expression of bitterness and enmity) nor enjoyment’. 39 Cf. Nagy (1979), 262 with reference to Thersites. 40 Dover (1964), 186 n. 2: ‘neither YÆ Ø (as creative work) nor relaxation’. On paraenetic elements and serious reXection in archaic iambos, see Bartol (1991); Kantzios (2005), 48–52, 68. 41 See Kantzios (2005), 34–74, for a survey of the range of thematic elements found in the trimeters of Archilochus, Semonides, Solon, and Hipponax; Bowie (2001a), (2001b), (2002a) for narrative, history, and politics in archaic iambic poetry.
162
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
interpretation of iamboi as the opposite of pleasure demands a rather contrived interpretation of the word. Perhaps more compelling arguments derive from comparison with parallels in archaic poetry of the impersonal º Ø with more than one negative, like h . . . h . . . or P . . . P . . . , because they usually involve coordinations of similar elements: Iºº h Ø $æø º Ø ¼ºª O ø, h ÆP B ¯Œ Å h —æØØ ¼ÆŒ h ŒÆت ø, ¥ Œ º ŒÆd KŁºd K Œ fi ÅØ Ø IæØ ı Ø, ‹ F, ‹ Œ Ø åÆØH åƺŒåØ ø ÆŒæı Æ ¼ªÅ ÆØ Kº Ł æ qÆæ IæÆ. (Il. 6.450–5) But not so much does the grief that is to come to the Trojans move me, neither Hecabe’s own, nor king Priam’s, nor that of my brothers, many and noble, who will fall in the dust at the hands of their foes, as does your grief, when some bronze-clad Achaean will lead you away weeping and rob you of your day of freedom.42 P ªaæ *ÆØŒ Ø º Ø Øe Pb çÆæ æÅ Iºº ƒ d ŒÆd Kæ a H ŒÆd B KEÆØ, fi wØ IªÆºº Ø ºØc æ øØ ŁºÆÆ. (Od. 6. 270–2) For the Phaeacians care not for bow or quiver, but for masts and oars of ships, and for the shapely ships, rejoicing in which they cross over the grey sea.43
Of particular interest is a hexametrical line transmitted by the third-century bce Stoic Chrysippus (unfortunately with no date or aYliation),44 because it joins two poetic terms in a double rejection with º Ø: h Ø PŒ ºø oø º Ø P Ø ºB (Adesp. Eleg. 8W) No longer do I care for melodious songs, no longer for song and dance.45 42 Translated by Murray and Wyatt (1999), vol. 1. 43 Translated by Murray and Dimock (1995), vol. 1. 44 Von Arnim (1903), vol. 2, fr. 186.67. 45 Translated by Gerber (1999b), 479.
Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)
163
In sum, the only meaning for iamboi as opposite to terpolai that is plausible from the point of view of the contents found in the corpus of the ‘received iambos’ is that of serious pursuits, but this meaning demands too much interpretative eVort on the part of an audience, whereas parallels are usually very much self-evident, particularly when the impersonal º Ø is used. Therefore, the possibility that iamboi and terpolai in Archil. 215W are opposites can be conWdently ruled out. Hence, iamboi are to be understood as something similar to ‘pleasure or entertainment in a context of leisure related to commensality or conviviality’.46 This interpretation oVers a rather encompassing perception of iambos, as both ‘light’ and ‘serious’ poetry, and thus is compatible with the variety of contents found in the ‘received iambos’. Although our inquiry whether iamboi and terpole are opposite has led to an apparent dead end, it nonetheless proves illuminating in a rather unexpected way. Donald Lavigne notes that the Homeric parallels I mention above, for impersonal º Ø and negative disjunctions (Il. 6.450–5 and Od. 6.270), provide a positive alternative: ‘I do not care for X, but I do for Y.’47 And indeed, the expression h Ø º Ø vel sim. seems to be characteristic of Archilochus for expressing strong rejections:
Ø º Ø Id KŒ Å; What do I care about that shield?48 (Archil. 5.3W) h Ø a ˆª ø F ºıåæı º Ø I do not care about the possessions of Gyges rich in gold49 (Archil. 19.1W) . . . ç[]æ ø Ø [º] Ø [ _ ]. N Iº _ _ I do not care about the cargo . . . or whether it was lost . . . 50 (Archil. 24.8–9W)
46 47 49 50
Dover (1964), 186 n. 2: ‘neither YÆ Ø nor enjoyment’. Lavigne, personal communication. 48 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 83. Adapted from Gerber (1999a), 93. Adapted from Gerber (1999a), 101.
164
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
We may be right to assume that stating a positive alternative after a rejection put in the h Ø º Ø idiom was usually the rule,51 as do Anacreon and the Anacreontea while echoing the Parian poet:
Ø (çÅ ) H IªŒıº ø y çغŒØæø ŒÆd ŒıŁø y º Ø; What do I care, my friend, for the Cimmerians with their curving bows and the Sintians?52 (Anacreon, Eleg. 3W) ˇh Ø º Ø a ˆª ø,
F æ ø ¼ÆŒ P xº ÇBº,53 Pb çŁH ıæØ, Kd º Ø æØØ ŒÆ Æ æå Ø Å, Kd º Ø Þ ØØ ŒÆ Æ ç Ø ŒæÅÆ.
e æ º Ø Ø,
e ÆhæØ r .54 I do not care about the wealth of Gyges, lord of Sardis: I have never envied him, and I have no grudge against tyrants. I care about drenching my beard with perfumes, I care about garlanding my head with roses; I care about today: who knows tomorrow?55 (Anacreontea 8)
In fr. 8 of the Anacreontea, as in the Homeric parallels cited above, a positive statement is made after the rejection with P º Ø. Thus, the poem to which Archil. 215W belongs might well have gone on to mention one or more alternatives which were the speaker’s preference at a given poetic moment. Here the opposites of terpole (‘pleasure or entertainment in a context of leisure related to commensality or conviviality’) evoked above can be suggestive of the way in which 51 h Ø º Ø vel sim. appears in Euripides and Plato, and is characteristic of Aristophanes and Menander. The expression is colloquial (‘I do not care’) and even rude (‘I couldn’t care less’) as a passage in Plato’s Apology suggests (32d1–4:
Ø Kªg P º ªfiø Iºº æªfiø Æs K ØÅ ‹ Ø Kd ŁÆ ı b º Ø, N c IªæØŒ
æ q N E, P › ØF, F b Åb ¼ØŒ Å I Ø KæªÇ ŁÆØ,
ı b e A º Ø). Plato’s passage states a positive preference after the rejection. 52 Translated by Campbell (1988), vol. 2, 149. 53 Alternatively, hŁ ƃæ Ø åæı . 54 The Anthologia Palatina (11.47), probably the oldest version, ends at this point. 55 Translated by Campbell (1988), vol. 2, 171.
Iambos in Archilochus (fr. 215W)
165
the poem may have continued. The speaker of Archil. 215W could have said ‘and I do not care about iamboi or pleasures: but I care about lamentation . . .’ (in Tzetzes’ context) or ‘but I care about serious matters’, perhaps more speciWcally, political matters. Let us sum up the analysis of Archil. 215W and examine how it aVects our understanding of the term iamboi. The rejection of iamboi and terpolai in Archil. 215W is a rejection of two notions that are semantically close: iamboi are compatible with ‘pleasure or entertainment in a context of leisure related to commensality or conviviality’. Terpolai refers to an unspeciWed type of occasion whereas iamboi points at something more speciWc which, in view of the later use of the term, may be characterized as poetic output56 compatible with that type of occasion. Although I have doubts as to Tzetzes’ knowledge of the original poem to which Archil. 215W belongs, it is still possible that through an intermediary he is correctly conveying the general sense of grief or mourning as opposed to iamboi and terpolai. This, however, need not be related to Archilochus’ own experience of loss. Furthermore, only if we follow Tzetzes does the fragment refer to Archilochus’ own activity as a composer of iamboi, but if the term iamboi is not self-reXexive, the rejection of iamboi may well be made from a spectator’s point of view, that is to say, the rejection of attending a performance of iamboi on some fun occasion, such as symposia, festivals, or public meals. This seems to me as far as we can go in the interpretation of Archil. 215W. The problem is that it makes the fragment compatible with almost all hypotheses about the nature of Greek iambos: it is not irreconcilable with the hypothesis of ritual origins (Fluck,57 West, Brown), nor with Dover’s suggestion that iamboi could mean Archilochus’ poetry as a whole.58 It also suits any occasion that has been proposed for the performance of iamboi: public performances at festivals (West), public performances in theatres (Bartol),59 komoi (Gentili), and symposia (Ro¨sler, Pellizer, Vetta, Bowie, Kantzios).60 56 As suggested to me by one of the anonymous OUP readers. 57 Fluck (1931), 66–7. 58 Dover (1964), 189. 59 Bartol (1992a). 60 Ro¨sler (1980); Pellizer (1991a), (1991b); Vetta (1992); but see Stehle’s qualiWcation: ‘I assume a closed setting, not necessarily the standard symposium, for the preserved iambic, which has shed ritual associations’ (Stehle (1997), 215 n. 11).
166
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Should we conclude that Archil. 215W in itself can merely serve as an illustration of various hypotheses regarding the archaic iambos? I suggest that we can nevertheless attempt to deWne a general type of occasion and a general function for the iamboi in Archil. 215W. The occasion: that of ritualized commensality or conviviality, either restricted to some (i.e. symposia) or more public (at religious festivals or public meals).61 The function: mainly entertainment.62 Such an occasion and such a function are not distinctive enough for us to argue that they shaped the genre of iamboi or that they gave them their name. The more inclusive an occasion of performance, the less prone it is to give names to speciWc songs (I return to the issue of the performance of iamboi in Chapter 9). It seems, therefore, that the question about the meaning of iambos for seventh-century bce audiences cannot be answered exclusively by reference to function or occasion of performance. Additional features must have been at work, of which, I believe, rhythm may well have been a prominent one.63 After pondering in the next chapter the role of Iambe in the conceptualization of the genre, I shall go on to propose in Chapter 7 that nothing in the pre-Hellenistic history of the term is incompatible with the hypothesis that the early concept of iambos had something to do with rhythm. 61 Schmitt-Pantel (1990), 24–5; Murray (1990b), 5–7. 62 Lasserre (1979), 60: ‘erwiesenermaßen Scherze, Vergnu¨gungsgedichte’. 63 Bartol (1993a), 33; Rotstein (2002), 112–16; Kantzios (2005), 29.
6 Iambe and Iambos Central to any discussion of the archaic iambos is the Wgure of Iambe. As we have seen in Chapter 4, that iambos derives from Iambe was a favourite etymology in ancient educational sources. Indeed, there is little doubt that the terms Å and YÆ are etymologically connected.1 Granted that a shared root implies a connection between Iambe and iambos, what is the nature of that connection, and what are the implications of this connection for our understanding of the genre of iambos? In this chapter I consider the nature of the link between Iambe and iambos. Since all ancient explanations of the type ‘iambos—from Iambe’ ultimately derive from the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, I begin by looking at the relevant passage to see what Iambe stands for there.
1. IAMBE IN THE HOME RIC HYMN TO DEMETER Iambe appears for the Wrst time in extant Greek literature in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, a text composed about 600 bce. The passage in question describes Demeter’s arrival at Celeus’ house in Eleusis. The goddess, in deep grief over the abduction of her daughter Persephone, refuses to sit down, speak, eat, or drink, until Iambe with jests moves her to ‘smile and laugh and have a gracious heart’: Iºº P ˜Å Åæ ‰æÅç æ IªºÆ øæ XŁ º (æØÆŁÆØ Kd ŒºØE çÆ ØF, 1 According to Radermacher (1918), 80, Å and YÆ constitute a pair similar to *E —* Å, ˚º —˚ºıÅ.
168
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context Iºº IŒıÆ Ø ŒÆ ZÆ Æ ŒÆºa ƺFÆ, æ ª ‹ ƒ ŁÅŒ Å Œ NıEÆ ÅŒ e , ŒÆŁ æŁ K Iæªç º ŒHÆ. ŁÆ ŒÆŁ ÇÅ æŒÆ å å æd ŒÆº æÅ: Åæe ¼çŁªª ØÅÅ w Kd çæı, P Ø h œ æ h Ø æªfiø, Iºº IªºÆ ¼Æ KÅ Mb B w Łfiø ØŁıÆ ÆŁıÇØ ŁıªÆ æ , æ ª ‹ c åº fi Å Ø Å Œ NıEÆ ººa ÆæÆŒ ı K æłÆ
ØÆ ±ª ØBÆØ ª ºÆØ ŒÆd ¥ºÆ å E Łı : m ƒ ŒÆd Ø Æ Ł æ hÆ OæªÆE.
195
200
205
(Hymn to Demeter 192–205) But Demeter, bringer of seasons and giver of rich gifts, did not wish to be seated on the shining seat. She waited resistant, her lovely eyes cast down, until knowing Iambe set out a well-built stool for her and cast over it a silvery Xeece. Seated there, the goddess drew the veil before her face. For a long time she sat voiceless with grief on the stool and responded to no one with word or gesture. Unsmiling, tasting neither food nor drink, she sat wasting with desire for her deep-girt daughter, until knowing Iambe jested with her and mocking with many a joke moved the holy goddess to smile and laugh and keep a gracious heart— Iambe, who later pleased her moods as well.2
This passage of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter is crucial for what it may reveal about the origins and nature of the early iambos. Let us look at some details of the passage. Who is Iambe and what is her role in the narrative of this section of the hymn? Iambe is twice described by the formulaic Œ a NıEÆ, ‘knowing’ or ‘diligent’ (lines 195 and 202). Given that in the Odyssey the same epithet is applied to Eurycleia, the old nurse of both Telemachus and Odysseus (1.428; 19.346), we can assume that Iambe is a servant.3 2 Translated by Foley (1994), 12. For recent treatments of the passage see O’Higgins (2003), 37–45 (on embedded women’s perspectives) and Rosen (2007a), 47–57 (as a paradigm of mockery in Greek myth). 3 Richardson (1974), 213; Brown (1997), 18.
Iambe and Iambos
169
We must note, however, that Œ a NıEÆ is also used in the Odyssey for Penelope (Od. 20.57, 23.182, and 23.232), though always preceded by the word ¼ºå, ‘wife’. In all cases of the Odyssey the epithet appears in scenes where strong emotions are involved. In fact, the epithet Œ a NıEÆ stresses both Eurycleia’s and Penelope’s loyalty and emotional attachment rather than their social status.4 Iambe may be a servant, but the epithet Œ a NıEÆ also stresses the fact that only Iambe succeeds in making contact with the mourning Demeter. Comparison with a passage of Odyssey 19 (ll. 308–88) is enlightening. Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, refuses Penelope’s attentions of hospitality and says that he does not want his feet to be washed by anyone other than an old, loyal woman who has suVered as much as he has ( N Ø ªæÅF K Ø ÆºÆØ, Œ a NıEÆ, = l Ø c ºÅŒ Æ çæ d ‹Æ Kª ç æ, Od. 19.346–7), to which Penelope replies that there is old Eurycleia. Odysseus’ verbal refusal and Demeter’s silent one in the Hymn have much in common. Both Odysseus and Demeter are xenoi who reject the usual attentions of hospitality. Furthermore, both conceal their real identity, which will be disclosed later in the narrative, and they both tell Wctional stories about themselves. These similarities suggest that the initial refusal of the gestures typical of hospitality and the later acceptance from a character of lower social standing are characteristic of a stock scene for the arrival of a hero in disguise at a time of crisis, before the hero’s identity (Odysseus, Demeter) is revealed. Rather than dwelling on Iambe’s servile status or her old age, features mentioned again and again by later sources, the Hymn lays stress on her actions. Indeed, the epithet-phrase appears in two formulaic lines (195 and 202) laying emphasis on Iambe’s role: nothing happens until Iambe makes signiWcant changes in the situation. In the Wrst case she makes Demeter sit down on a stool, in the second she makes the goddess laugh. The hymn observes, further, that Iambe’s actions have a double eVect. Within the story-frame Iambe moves Demeter to have a gracious heart (line 203), but she is said to have pleased the goddess afterwards as well (line 205). This reference to a future time in
4 Foley (1994), 45.
170
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
relation to that of the narrative suggests that the whole scene is an aition, an explanation of origins, yet an aition for what? The most obvious answer is that the Hymn alludes to the origins of certain aspects of Demeter’s cult at Eleusis, particularly those related to the preliminary initiation, to the end of the ritual silence and the fasting and to the drinking of the kykeon (ŒıŒ ), a barley drink.5 However, Clinton suggests that rather than to the Eleusinian cult, the Hymn alludes to the origins of the Thesmophoria, the women’s festival in honour of Demeter.6 I shall return to this at the end of section 4. Iambe achieves a change of mood in Demeter through jests (åº fi Å) and mockery (the transmitted ÆæÆŒ ı or Heyne’s Œ ı ). Does this refer to personal insults or to jests and mockery with no speciWc target?7 Constructions like åº Å Ø EŁÆØ or
Ł ŁÆ ØÆ (or Ø) mean ‘make a jest of ’,8 and Œ Ø with accusative means ‘mock, jeer, scoV at’.9 However, in our passage there is no accusative of the person at whose expense Iambe makes her jokes, and with no speciWc and named target there is no personal abuse. The chorus of initiates in Aristophanes’ Frogs oVers an illuminating parallel. In lines 374–5 the chorus calls for jest, sport, and mockery (º Øø KªŒæø / ŒIØŒ ø / ŒÆd Æ Çø ŒÆd åº ıÇø) while in lines 416–17 the chorus proposes to engage in abuse of a speciWc target, Archedemos ( º Ł B Æ ŒØfi B = Œłø æåÅ;). In the Frogs, as in the Hymn, there is a distinction between jokes and mockery as a means to arouse laughter, and jokes in personam, as a means to arouse laughter by abusing a speciWc individual.10 In our passage the sense is that of laughter arising through jests with no speciWc targets. No further details are given of how Demeter’s reaction is achieved. It is the aetiological character of the scene that makes scholars read in Iambe’s jests and mockery an allusion to aischrologia (ÆNå溪 Æ), verbal
5 Richardson (1974), 211–13; Parker (1991), 8. 6 Clinton (1992), (2007). 7 Brown (1997), 20 and n. 28 argues for personal insult; Rosen (2007a), 50, for mockery directed against Demeter. 8 LSJ s.v. åº Å. 9 LSJ s.v. Œ ø; similarly when constructed with N ØÆ, æ ØÆ. 10 For this distinction in the chorus of initiates in Aristophanes’ Frogs see Siems (1974), 17–21. As I noted in Ch. 3, sect. 7, Aristotle characterizes the laughable as involving no pain (Po. 1449a34–7).
Iambe and Iambos
171
obscenity.11 A look at this notion will help us determine the nature of the passage as an aition.
2 . A I S C H ROLO G I A Aischrologia (ÆNå溪 Æ) ‘shameful expression’, is a regular Greek term for verbal obscenity, of which Henderson oVers a very clear deWnition: By ‘obscenity’ we mean verbal reference to areas of human activity or parts of the human body that are protected by certain taboos agreed upon by prevailing social custom and subject to emotional aversion or inhibition. These are in fact the sexual and excremental areas. In order to be obscene, such a reference must be made by an explicit expression that is itself subject to the same inhibitions as the thing it describes. Thus, to utter one of the numerous words, to be found in any language, which openly (noneuphemistically) describe the tabooed organs or actions is tantamount to exposing what should be hidden.12
In traditional societies obscenity consists in uttering what should be kept silent. The distinction between jokes and jokes in personam applies to obscenity, for obscenity does not automatically imply abuse of an individual.13 Obscenity has two main ritual functions, to encourage fertility and to avert evil (i.e. apotropaic obscenity).14 As such, obscenity played a role in a number of Greek cults, a majority of them involving only
11 Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1936), 151; Richardson (1974), 222; Bartol (1993a), 36; Foley (1994), 46; Arthur Katz (1994), 230. West (1974), 24 refers to Iambe’s actions as ‘humorous abuse’. 12 Henderson (1991), 2. 13 Henderson (1991), 17. A diVerent view in Ro¨sler (1993), 76, who deWnes aischrologia as ‘Akte verbaler Aggression, gerichtet gegen einzelne oder gegen Gruppen, mit einer Tendenz zur Obszo¨nita¨t’. 14 Aischrologia is explained in terms of fertility by Frazer (1911), 234–52 and Deubner (1932), 53, 57–8, 267. The apotropaic function of aischrologia is asserted by Fluck (1931), 28–33. Siems (1974), 14–16, 24 distinguishes between orgiasticepideictic aischrologia, which has the aim of encouraging fertility, and apotropaicscoptic aischrologia, which is directed against those powers that could destroy fertility. A link with the seasonal cycle is stressed by BrumWeld (1981), 207 V. Burkert (1985),
172
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
women.15 Indeed, there is evidence for mockery and obscenity as part of the widespread cult of Demeter,16 particularly in the various Attic festivals involving women: the Thesmophoria (celebrated, in fact, all over Greece including Eleusis),17 the Stenia,18 and the Haloa.19 Obscenity is also connected with the Great Mysteries celebrated in the sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis. The participants in the procession from Athens to Eleusis, men and women, used to mock passers-by from a bridge (ªçıæÆ), a custom known as ª çıæØ .20 In addition, there was an exchange of mockery between groups at the Syracusan Thesmophoria.21 At Pellene and at the Anaphaia mocking groups were formed according to gender (Paus. 8.27.9).22 At Aegina and Epidaurus, so Herodotus tells us (5.83), choregoi were appointed for training choruses of mocking women for the festivals of Damia and Auxesia, who are probably surrogates of Demeter and Persephone. Scurrility must in this case have taken the form of songs. In an account of the ritual of Osiris, whom he identiWes elsewhere with Dionysos (2.144), Herodotus (2.60) tells of an Egyptian custom: on the way to Boubastis, men and women embarked on ships and stopped at various towns by the river. There the women abused women from other cities, and while doing so they lifted their clothes.
104 Wnds that Greek cults rather emphasize ‘the absurdity and buVoonery of the whole aVair’. See also Halliwell (2000), 157. More speciWcally on women’s cultic obscenity see O’Higgins (2001); (2003), 15–36. 15 Fluck (1931), assembled the evidence for ritual aischrologia. See discussion in Siems (1974), 13–17. For a survey of obscene language in Greek literature and cult see Henderson (1991), 1–29. Obscene terminology in the archaic iambic poets, also in Henderson (1991), 17–23; Lee (1993), 83–106. 16 For literary and archaeological evidence on the cult of Demeter, see Larson (2007), 69–85. O’Higgins (2003), 15–27 discusses evidence pertaining to female cultic obscenity. 17 Cf. Apoll. Bibl. 1.5.1; Pausanias 7.27.9–10 (Pellene, in the Peloponnese). 18 Hsch. s.v. ØÆ: (æ c ŁÅØ: ŒÆd ØÆŒ ıØ ŒÆd ºØæFØ. Photius s.v. ØÆ: (æ c ŁÅØ, K fi w K Œ Ø ¼ ª ŁÆØ B ˜Å æ: KºØæF K ÆP fi B ıŒ e ƃ ªıÆEŒ IºººÆØ: o ø ¯h ıº. 19 Schol. Lucian. Dial. Meretr. 7.4. 20 Hsch. s.v. ª çıæØ Æ and ª çıæ ; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 9.1.24. Cf. Fluck (1931), 52; Henderson (1991), 16. 21 Diodor. 5.4.6, see text in n. 35 below. 22 Exchange of mockery between male and female groups at the Anaphaia: AR 4.1719 V; Apollodorus 1.9.26; Conon 49.
Iambe and Iambos
173
Such obscenity is not only verbal but also ‘epideictic’, that is to say, it actually shows the taboo. I shall go back to this in section 4. In sum, a number of festivals and practices in honour of Demeter involved the exchange of mockery, scurrility, and explicit obscenity particularly between women. This type of ritual practice is covered in our sources by a range of Greek terms: øŁÆ (ritual scurrility), ŒÆ Æ (jokes), ÆNå溪 Æ (obscenity), ºØæ Æ (abuse). We can conWdently adopt the term aischrologia given that it is used as a technical term since Plato and Aristotle for sexual and scatological expressions.23 Returning to our passage, we can now address the question, what is the Iambe scene an aition for? The actions of Iambe depicted in the Hymn to Demeter are paradigmatic of female aischrologia in the context of the cult of Demeter. Thus, the aetiological character of the scene applies to aischrologia, not to iambos. Is Iambe merely a literary Wgure, or a Wgure of the ritual cult enacted every year at Eleusis? Looking into the literary tradition of Iambe will help answer this question.
3. IAMBE IN LATER LITERARY SOURCES Later versions of the encounter between Demeter and Iambe diVer in details regarding Iambe’s standing and birthplace. Some sources emphasize her servile status,24 while others describe her simply as an old woman.25 Nicander of Colophon (2nd cent. bce) makes her Thracian, but Philicus of Corcyra (3rd cent. bce), Attic.26 23 Siems (1974), 9 V. and 24–6. 24 According to the historian Philochorus, Iambe was ‘Metaneirae ancilla’ (ap. Natalis Comes, Myth. 3, 16 p. 245 ed. Genev. ¼ FGrH 3b, 328 F 103, p. 421). She is described as a Ł æÆØÆ by Proclus (ap. Photius, Bibl. 239.319b15 V.), Choeroboscus (in Heph. p. 214.8), and the scholiast to Aristoph. (Plutum 1013.11); and as a ºÅ by the scholiast to Nicander (Alex. 130a) and the scholiast to Euripides (Or. 964). For Iambe after the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, see O’Higgins (2003), 65–9. 25 Philicus (SH fr. 680.54), Nicander (Alex. 132), Apollodorus (Bibl. 1.30) and Choeroboscus in his second explanation (in Heph. p. 214.12). 26 Thracian: Nicander (Alex. 132) and Proclus (ap. Photius, Bibl. 239.319b15 V.). Attic: Philicus (SH fr. 680.58).
174
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Other sources say Iambe is the daughter of Pan and Echo,27 a parentage that associates Iambe with earthy and sexual elements and with the spread of sound.28 Whatever the diVerences, later testimonies coincide in attributing to Iambe’s words to Demeter a scoptic character. Incidentally, we know that Sophocles composed a play entitled ‘Iambe’ but only the title has been preserved.29 Among Hellenistic poets dealing with Iambe we Wnd a preference for allusion and variation. Nicander, for example, emphasizes the unrestrained nature of Iambe’s speech (IŁæØØ . . . Þ æfi ÅØ, Nicander, Alexipharmaka 132). In his Hymn to Demeter Philicus actually reports Iambe’s speech, presenting it as a humorous tale ( E › ª ºE º ª pæ IŒ æ < >, SH fr. 80.55).30 Sources with a didactic purpose draw aitia according to their diVerent agendas. The handbook of mythology attributed to Apollodorus of Athens follows the Hymn even in the wording: —º ø b — æ ç Å KæÆŁ d ˜Øe ı æªF læÆ ÆP c ŒæçÆ: ˜Å Åæ b a ºÆø ıŒ ŒÆd æÆ ŒÆ a AÆ c ªB ÇÅ FÆ æØfi Ø: ÆŁFÆ b Ææ ¯ æØø ‹ Ø —º ø ÆP c læÆ , OæªØÇÅ Ł E ŒÆ ºØ PæÆ , NŒÆŁ EÆ b ªıÆØŒd wŒ N ¯ º ıEÆ: ŒÆd æH b Kd c I KŒ Å ŒºÅŁ EÆ ªºÆ KŒŁØ æÆ Ææa e ˚ƺº åæ çæÆæ ŒÆº : Ø Æ æe ˚ º e KºŁFÆ e Æغ Æ
¯ º ıØ ø, PH ªıÆØŒH, ŒÆd º ªıH ø Ææ Æ a ŒÆŁÇ ŁÆØ, ªæÆE Ø Å ŒłÆÆ c Ł e K Å ØØAÆØ: Øa F K E Ł çæ Ø a ªıÆEŒÆ Œ Ø ºªıØ. (Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.29–30) Pluto fell in love with Persephone and with the help of Zeus carried her oV secretly. But Demeter went about seeking her all over the earth with torches by night and day, and learning from the people of Hermione that Pluto had carried her oV, she was wroth with the gods and quitted heaven, and came in
27 The scholiast to Nicander (op. cit.), Philochorus (op. cit.), Et. Gen. (p. 160 Reiske). 28 ‘. . . sa double alle´geance ‘‘ge´ne´tique’’: par sa me`re Echo, ‘‘une voix sans corps’’, elle est, babillarde, un eˆtre de paroles, et la paternite´ de Pan range Iambe` du coˆte´ des gestes qui unissent la musique et la danse a` une sexualite´ sans urbanite´’ (Olender (1985), 21–2 with nn. 82 and 83). 29 SteVen (1952), 163; Sutton (1974), 134. 30 Cf. Philicus, Hymn to Demeter, SH fr. 677 and 680.51–62. Brown (1990), 187 argues that Philicus may have used a local variant of the myth, as Iambe is described as Attic and coming from Halimous.
Iambe and Iambos
175
the likeness of a woman to Eleusis. And Wrst she sat down on the rock which has been named Laughless after her, beside what is called the Well of the Fair Dances; thereupon she made her way to Celeus, who at that time reigned over the Eleusinians. Some women were in the house, and when they bid her sit down beside them, a certain old crone, Iambe, joked the goddess and made her smile. For that reason they say that the women break jests at the Thesmophoria.31
Apollodorus spells out an aition that links Iambe’s jokes to what the Homeric Hymn leaves unspoken: ritual aischrologia at the Thesmophoria. As we have seen in Chapter 4, section 4, lexicographers, commentators, and scholiasts also follow the Homeric Hymn version, but they take the story of Iambe as aition for the origins of the word iambos. Besides making an etymological link between Iambe and iambos, some ancient scholars go on to say that what Iambe said to Demeter was actually shaped in the iambic trimeter. Choeroboscus, in his commentary to Hephaestion’s metrical handbook, adds to the etymological argument that Iambe’s jests were spontaneously uttered in iambic rhythm. Or alternatively, that Hipponax met a diVerent Iambe, and because her words were shaped in iambic trimeter (or choliambic metre according to others) Hipponax named the metre after her.32 Finally, the scholiast to Nicander’s Alexipharmaka (130a) adds that Iambe was the Wrst to utter the iambic metre (qÆ b a ÞÅŁ Æ ÆP B NÆ ØŒfiH æfiø ÞıŁØŁ Æ, ‹ æ ÆP c æH r ).33 In this way Iambe appears as protos heuretes, Wrst inventor, of the iambic metre. A shift thus took place in the perceptions of Iambe among ancient writers, from aition of ritual aischrologia, to eponym of iambos. I believe this change was partly a result of Aristotle’s hypothesis that the metre originated in the exchange of abuse (Chapter 3, sect. 6.i). However, educational sources continued 31 Translated by Frazer (1921), vol I, 36–7. 32 As I noted in Ch. 4, sect. 2, Rosen (1988b) and Brown (1988) argue that this story could derive from a poem by Hipponax in which there was a scene of poetic initiation. If this was so we would have almost contemporary explicit evidence, independent of the Hymn, for a link between Iambe and iambos. Cf. Fowler (1990). 33 Cf. Scholia in Euripidem, Or. 964; Eustathius on Od. ¸ 277 (OæåıÅ Ø fiø æfiø); Mar. Sacerd. Art. Gram. III 1, GL p. 498,10 Keil (iambus . . . cui nomen Iambe, Celei Wlia, dedit . . . ); Philochorus Test. FGrH 3b, 328 F 103 (Natal. Com. Myth. 3, 16 p. 245 ed. Genev.).
176
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
to Wnd in Iambe and her connection with ritual aischrologia a meaningful Wgure for epitomizing the hypothesis of the ritual origins of iambos. The post-classical history of Iambe is a fascinating example of the literary afterlife of a minor Wgure, from festivals to the margins of codices, through Hellenistic poets, handbooks, and lexica. DiVerent purposes, literary or didactic, account for the variants in the sources, but all in all they follow the Homeric Hymn.34 In sum, in spite of the relative popularity of Iambe in the later sources, these are so dependent on the Homeric Hymn that they do not provide further insight into Iambe’s role in ancient cult. With regard to Iambe, Apollodorus makes an explicit connection between the myth and ritual practice, but in Diodorus the explanation works perfectly well without mentioning Iambe.35
4 . IA M BE A N D B AU B O The case of Baubo, whose ritual role is well attested in the Orphic version of the myth, is diVerent.36 Although this version, transmitted by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Arnobius, emerged in written form much later than the Hymn to Demeter,37 it 34 Brown (1997), 21–4 argues that variants are due to diVerent local traditions of myth and cult. 35 ˜Å æ e ŒÆØæe B Łı Æ æŒæØÆ K fiz c Iæåc › æ F ı ºÆ Ø, Kd æÆ ŒÆ ƪıæØ ¼ªıØ Kı B Ł F Æ Å, fi B ºÆæ
Å Ø B ÆæÆŒ ıB ªÆºæ Å ŒÆd fi B ØÆŒ ıfi B Ø Ø e IæåÆE : Ł K d ÆP E K Æ ÆØ ÆE æÆØ ÆNå溪 E ŒÆ a a æe Iºººı ›Øº Æ Øa e c Ł e Kd fi B B ˚ æÅ ±æƪfi B ºııÅ ª ºÆØ Øa c ÆNå溪 Æ (Diodor. 5.4.7). ‘But in the case of Demeter they preferred that time for the sacriWce when the sowing of the corn is Wrst begun, and for a period of ten days they hold a festive gathering which bears the name of this goddess and is most magniWcent by reason of the brilliance of their preparation for it, while in the observance of it they imitate the ancient manner of life. And it is their custom during these days to indulge in coarse language as they associate one with another, the reason being that by such coarseness the goddess, grieved though she was at the Rape of Coreˆ, burst into laughter.’ (Translated by Oldfather (1963), vol. 3, 109.) 36 On Baubo, see Olender (1985); Arans (1988); Olender (1990); O’Higgins (2001), 139–42; (2003). 37 Clem. Protrep. 2.20.1–21.2, Euseb. Praep. Ev. 2.3.31–5, Arnobius, Adv. Nat. 5.25. Cf. O’Higgins (2001), 139–42, for a view of Iambe and Baubo focused on gender.
Iambe and Iambos
177
may well reXect a local Eleusinian version, possibly as early as the sixth century bce, and perhaps even earlier than the Hymn.38 In this version of the myth Baubo makes Demeter laugh by means of an obscene exposure.39 Clement says that Baubo lifts up her clothes in order to show Demeter her genitals, a gesture known as anasyrmos. The name Baubo, probably meaning ‘vulva’,40 makes explicit the very thing that Baubo exposes. Thus both her name and her actions are obscene. The account of Baubo may well be an aition as is the story of Iambe,41 but, unlike the case of Iambe, there is independent evidence to associate Baubo with the historical cult of Demeter. The fourthcentury historian Asclepiades of Tragilos connects Baubo to Eleusis (FGrH 12 F 4). An inscription from the end of the fourth century bce found in Naxos honours Baubo along with Demeter, Kore, and Zeus Eubouleus: [¨] ø[] Å ˚æÅŁø ˜[Å æØ] j [ŒÆ]d ˚ æÅØ _ _ _ _ (SEG XVI.478). The restoration of ŒÆd ˜Ød ¯P ıº E ŒÆd _´Æ[ı E] the name Baubo at the end of this inscription is supported by a Wrstcentury bce inscription found in Paros, which attests the continuity of Baubo’s role in the Demeter cult: ¯ æÆ Å ¨æø
38 Guthrie (1952), 134; Richardson (1974), 84–5, with further references. Similarly Parker (1996), 100: ‘An Orphic reinterpretation of the Eleusinian cult in the sixth century can therefore be postulated’. 39 S NFÆ ºı I æ , E b Æ Æ Pb æ Æ . (Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta 52.1–2)
40 Graf (1974), 169; Parker (1991); Foley (1994), 46. The word ´Æı appears in Empedocles, fr. 153 DK. Hesychius (s.v.): ØŁÅ ˜Å æ, ÅÆ Ø b ŒÆd ŒØº Æ, ‰ Ææ ¯ Œº E. Herondas (6.19) uses Æı for an imitation-phallus, i.e. a dildo (ZºØ ). Cf. female obscene exposure on the way to Boubastis (´ Æ Ø), although the Egyptian goddess of that name was identiWed with Artemis (Hdt. 2.59, 2.137; see also 2.156 where Herodotus mentions a version of a legend in which Artemis was Demeter’s daughter). See Olender (1985); O’Higgins (2003) 27–30; LIMC s.v. ‘Baubo’, for Wgurines that are usually considered a representation of Baubo. Weir and Jerman (1999), passim for the Sheela-na-gigs; 111–14 for a view of the Baubo Wgurines in the context of the iconography of female exhibitionists. Lubell (1994) oVers a cross-cultural survey of visual and literary evidence of anasyrmos, with wonderful illustrations by the author; the identiWcation of Baubo and Iambe is essential to the argument about the universal expression of women’s sexual energy. 41 Graf (1974), 169.
178
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
.˙ < Ø > æÅ(Ø) j ˜Å æØ ¨ ç æøØ ŒÆd ˚ jæÅØ ŒÆd ˜Ød ¯P ıº E ŒÆd ´Æı E (IG XII.5.227). In addition, a Hellenistic inscription from Dion (Macedonia) suggests that there was an independent cult of Baubo, with a priestess to hold the oYce: Œæ Å ¨ æı ƒ æÅ ÆÆ ´Æ E (SEG XXVII.280, XXXIV.610).42 Iambe and Baubo are often considered interchangeable or complementary, Baubo sometimes being called ‘Iambe’s alter ego’ or ‘Iambe’s Orphic counterpart’.43 In a study of the relevant sources Arans concluded that Iambe and Baubo are functionally identical and, most probably, should be regarded as the same Wgure under diVerent cult names.44 O’Higgins, however, makes a crucial distinction: ‘the speech of Iambe . . . was the verbal equivalent of Baubo’s gesture’.45 Baubo’s obscenity is ‘epideictic’, as it involves obscene exposure, while Iambe’s jokes as described in the hymn may well allude to obscenity, but the hymn gives no explicit indication that there was anything beyond verbal obscenity.46 Moreover, Baubo’s name is obscene in itself, while Iambe’s could be taken as a euphemism. For all these reasons Parker has argued that the author of the Hymn to Demeter chose Iambe over Baubo, precisely to avoid a reference to obscenity that would not be appropriate to the genre.47 Thus, while the Iambe scene in the Homeric Hymn is an aition of aischrologia in Demeter’s cult, she played no role in actual cult, unlike Baubo. Now Clinton has pointed out that some essential elements of the Eleusinian mysteries are missing from the encounter between Demeter and Iambe in the Homeric Hymn. First, the mirthless rock 42 See Arans (1988), 461; cf. O’Higgins (2001), 141–2; (2003), 52–3. Arans’s reference to SEG XXII, 1980: 280 should read SEG XXVII, 1977: 280. 43 e.g. Arans (1988), pp. xiv–xv. 44 Arans (1988), 146. 45 O’Higgins (2001), 139. 46 Only the EM attributes obscene gestures to Iambe. 47 Parker (1991), 5 with n. 19. O’Higgins’s comments are enlightening: ‘Baubo clearly existed as both a cultic and a literary Wgure. Iambe, by contrast, has not shown up in inscriptions or in any archaeological context. Iambe was ‘‘cultic’’ only in the sense that she epitomized a cultic activity: the exchange of insults or aischrologia. In fact, the evidence suggests that Iambe was the invention of the composer(s) of the Hymn: the necessary catalyst in the Eleusinian drama, but one who avoided the crude pantomime of the traditional cultic tale’ (O’Higgins (2001), 142). Cf. also O’Higgins (2003), 51–3. Unlike Iambe, who in the hymn is old, Baubo, according to O’Higgins, is a woman of childbearing years, emblematizing female sexuality and fertility (O’Higgins (2003), 53).
Iambe and Iambos
179
(IªºÆ æÆ), the rock on which Demeter sat when she arrived at Eleusis, central to the Eleusinian topography and iconography. Second, Euboleus, an equal to Triptolemos in Wfth- and fourthcentury sacred laws of Eleusis.48 Based on these ‘deWciencies’ Clinton suggests that, unlike the Wnal part of the hymn, which clearly refers to the introduction of the mysteries at Eleusis, the Iambe scene does not reXect the mysteries but an earlier, widespread Demeter festival, the Thesmophoria. The distinction is a crucial one. At Eleusis the myth was dramatized within the cult.49 However, as Clinton indicates, the gephyrismos is the only mockery attested for the mysteries.50 As we have seen, there is no evidence suggesting that Iambe played a role in the cult myth of Eleusis. The scene is, Clinton concludes, an aetiological myth, i.e. a myth explaining a particular aspect of the cult, namely, ritual abuse performed by women at the diVerent locations in which the Thesmophoria was celebrated, including Eleusis. If Clinton is right and Iambe belongs to an aetiological myth and not to a cult myth, the relative freedom to coin or to choose the name Iambe for the role of cheering up Demeter becomes apparent. Furthermore, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter reXects a generic, Panhellenized version of the Attic cult, as it omits some important elements of the Eleusinian mysteries.51 It was probably composed, as Hamilton suggests, for delivery at diVerent sanctuaries of Demeter, perhaps in the context of rhapsodic competition.52 For such performance occasions non-speciWc allusions to ritual obscenity would have been appropriate. In sum, whereas Baubo is attested in ritual, Iambe appears to be a Wgure of literature, in the Homeric Hymn and in later literary sources that are dependent on it. It is through a Wgure whose name derives from iambos that the Iambe scene in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter alludes to aischrologia in a ritual context. Either the author of the Hymn coined the name Iambe because he found a speciWc resemblance between the poems known as iamboi and what Iambe was meant to represent (verbal obscenity that makes people laugh),53 or 48 Clinton (1992), 56–9. 49 Clinton (1992), 30, 34. 50 Clinton (1992), 30. 51 Clinton (1992), 76; (2007), 344. 52 Cf. Hamilton (2004). 53 Bowie (2001a), 3, for a conceptual link between iamboi and ŒÆ Æ (jibes) based on the Iambe scene of the Hymn.
180
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
the Wgure was part of an initiation poem by Hipponax, as Rosen and Brown suggest. However this may be, Iambe is a female Wgure, suitable for the women-only context of the scene in the Hymn, and for the gender-segregated nature of the Thesmophoria.54 How this female Wgure works within the male-dominated sphere that emerges from the texts in the iambic corpus is diYcult to tell.55 If, as Rosen and Brown argued, Hipponax spoke of Iambe in a poetic initiation, the author of the Hymn may have found a female personiWcation of the iambos genre in the literary tradition.
5 . I A M B E A N D I A M B OS Let us recapitulate. In our passage Iambe changes Demeter’s mood drastically by mockery and jokes. Although obscenity is not made explicit, it may be alluded to, in which case the passage would be an aition for scurrility in the cult of Demeter, most probably at the Thesmophoria. It was in this sense that later authors seem to have understood the scene, and they elaborated further on it according to their literary, scholarly, or didactic agenda. Furthermore, the Orphic version of the myth, which may well be as early as the Hymn, mentions Baubo as performing a function similar to Iambe’s, in this case by means of anasyrmos, obscene exposure. Evidence suggests that Baubo was part of the historical cult of Demeter as early as the fourth century bce. Yet for Iambe’s role in the Eleusinian myth and rite there is no information independent of the Hymn to Demeter. It is therefore possible, as Parker suggests, that Iambe was chosen or even invented by the poet of the Hymn in order to maintain the tone and style appropriate to the genre. If Iambe is a literary Wgure rather than one belonging to Demeter’s myth and ritual, the poet of the Hymn chose her or coined her name after iambos because he found a similarity between iambos and what Iambe would then personify: not ritual scurrility (for which Baubo could have been enough) but a ‘milder’, ‘more civilized’ phenomenon 54 Larson (2007), 70. 55 A possible answer in O’Higgins (2003), 58–85, esp. 82–5.
Iambe and Iambos
181
with similarities to ritual scurrility as well as diVerences from it. The poet may have deliberately wanted to associate Iambe with something other than ritual aischrologia, something compatible with jokes, mockery, and a general eVect of cheering up. I believe there is enough ground to challenge the view that the Homeric Hymn to Demeter supports the hypothesis of the ritual origins of iambos. However, it could be argued that ritual origins for iambos are supported by the part played by Archilochus in Demeter’s cult at Paros. However, the evidence for this is extremely tenuous. The most important witness is Pausanias (10.28.3). As he describes Polygnotos’ painting of the Underworld at the Lesche of the Cnidians in Delphi, he mentions Tellis and Cleoboea (carrying a chest belonging to the Demeter cult) on Charon’s boat. Pausanias adds56 that Tellis was Archilochus’ grandfather, and that Cleoboea brought the orgies of Demeter from Paros to Thasos. This testimony suggests that Archilochus’ family was connected to the worship of Demeter.57 A second testimony comes from the third-century bce inscription set up in Paros by Mnesiepes, recording Archilochus’ participation at a festival with a song for Dionysos (fr. 251W). The two testimonies belong to accounts of the Parian tradition of the colonization of Thasos, in which the heroization of Archilochus played an important role. Not only did Delphi promote a rehabilitation of Archilochus in relation to the colonization of Thasos, as Marcaccini suggests,58 but Polygnotos himself was a Thasian. Furthermore, although it is true that the names of Archilochus’ father, Telesicles, and grandfather, Tellis, suggest religious functions,59 that Archilochus himself and his family would play signiWcant roles in Parian and Thasian religious life is what one would in any case expect from an aristocratic seventh-century family. We still need Pausanias to make the connection with Demeter’s cult. In the end, the evidence for Archilochus’ role in the cult is very weak, and it ultimately comes down to Pausanias’ ekphrasis.60 56 Jacoby suggests that Pausanias here follows Polemon. 57 West (1974), 27; Gerber (1999a); O’Higgins (2003), 61. 58 Marcaccini (2001), 62–93. Cf. Tarditi (1956). 59 Nagy (1990), 431. Archil. 322W, which explicitly mentions Demeter and Kore, is considered spurious by West. 60 See O’Higgins (2003), 61–3 for a more optimistic survey of the evidence on Archilochus and Demeter.
182
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
And yet, the question of the origins of iambos is not essential to my argument. For no matter how we understand Iambe (either belonging to myth and ritual or as a literary personiWcation), her actions (as jests with no target, as abuse directed at Demeter, or as an allusion to epideictic obscenity), and her relation to Baubo (counterparts or essentially diVerent), one aspect remains stable. This is the speciWc eVect that Iambe’s jests and mockery (åº FÆØ and Œ Ø) have on Demeter. They make her laugh, they cheer her up, they mitigate her pain. After Iambe’s intervention Demeter is willing to have something to drink, the kykeon, and to start a conversation with her hosts. That is to say, Demeter accepts some of the usual attentions of hospitality. The eVect of Iambe’s actions within the narrative of the Hymn can shed light on the nature of the early iambos in respect of its audience. Laughter, a good mood, and a disposition to share food, drink, and conversation, were perhaps the expected eVects of iamboi upon their audience. Such functions are compatible with our understanding of iamboi in Archil. 215W as associated with occasions of ritualized commensality or conviviality and the function of entertainment. If we can trust Tzetzes’ knowledge of the original context of Archil. 215W, both archaic testimonies are connected with mourning, or perhaps, with an alternative to grief. It would therefore be possible to infer that iambos, understood as compatible with pleasurable leisure activities and which could be associated with cheerful jokes and mockery, was perceived in the seventh and sixth centuries as having the therapeutic eVect of mitigating pain and sorrow.
7 Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period How was the genre of iambos conceptualized before Aristotle? My examination of evidence in the two previous chapters helped establish the notions with which the genre was associated in the archaic period. In this chapter I continue to survey Wfth- and fourth-century bce testimonies, focusing on the terms iambos and iambeion. As we have seen in Chapter 3, Aristotle exempliWes the range of uses of the term iambos inherited by later writers and scholars: for a rhythm (Rh. 1408b32–1409a6), for speciWc poems (Rh. 1418b29–31), thus generically for a type of poetry (Pol. 1336b12–23 and Po. passim), and for a type of public performance (Pol. 1336b12–23). I take these possible meanings as a point of departure for my analysis. I begin by exploring the use of iambos for ‘iambic rhythm’ in Damon of Oa and in Plato. I then turn to the use of iambos for an ‘iambic poem’, by Herodotus and Aristophanes, and of iamboi for ‘iambic genre’ in Plato, who conceives iamboi also as public performances. Next, a brief reconstruction of the history of the term iambeion will show its connection with the rhythmical sense of iambos. I leave to the end the inconclusive evidence for a Dorian iambos represented by Aristoxenus of Selinus, and conclude by oVering a hypothesis of the development of terms from the archaic into the classical period.
1 . IAMBOS A S A R H YT H MI C A L T E R M The meaning of iambos as ‘iambic rhythm’ was a prevalent one in ancient Greek musical thought. We Wnd clear hints of this in a
184
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
testimony on Damon, a signiWcant, if shadowy, Wgure in the intellectual and political life of Wfth-century Athens.1 Damon of Oa was born about 500 bce.2 He was ostracized about 443/ 442 but was probably back in Athens by 432/431, as a number of Plato’s dialogues set in those years suggest.3 His theories on the psychological and political eVects of music were very inXuential in antiquity. Traces of those theories can be found in the third book of Plato’s Republic, in Aristides’ De Musica, and in Philodemus’ De Musica.4 In a passage of the Republic (400a–c) we Wnd a reference to iambos among other rhythmical units in the context of Damon’s theories: ººa ÆF Æ ; q Kª; ŒÆd a ˜ø ıº ı ŁÆ; I º ıŁ æ Æ ŒÆd o æ ø j Æ Æ ŒÆd ¼ººÅ ŒÆŒ Æ æıÆØ Ø; ŒÆd
Æ E KÆ Ø º Ø ÞıŁ: rÆØ IŒÅŒÆØ P ÆçH K ºØ ØÆ OÇ ÆP F Ł ŒÆd Œ ıº ŒÆd æfiH ª ; PŒ rÆ ‹ø ØÆŒF ŒÆd Y ¼ø ŒÆd Œ ø ØŁ ; N æÆå ŒÆd ÆŒæe ªØª ; ŒÆ ; ‰ Kªg rÆØ; YÆ ŒÆ Ø ¼ºº æåÆE T ÆÇ ; ŒÅ b ŒÆd æÆå Å Æ æB . Well, on these matters also we shall take counsel with Damon, as to which steps are appropriate to ungentlemanly behaviour and hubris or mania and other evils, and what rhythms we must leave for their opposites. I think I have heard him obscurely naming a metre ‘in armour’ (K ºØ) [a composite], and one called ‘Wnger’ (Œ ıº) and a ‘heroic’ which he somehow arranged and made equal up and down, passing into a short and a long, and, as I think, he named something an iamb [iambos] and something else a trochee, and he added longs and shorts.5
Damon developed a theory on the eVect of music upon character, which distinguished the diVerent psychological eVects of rhythms on behaviour. Given the role of music in ancient Greek life, in ritual, education, and military training, the eVects of rhythm upon character had potential implications for the life of the entire community. 1 For sources on Damon’s life and work see Wallace (1991). For Damon’s role in Greek rhythmical theory, see Wilamowitz-MoellendorV (1921), 59–65; Del Grande (1948); Gentili (1988b). 2 Wallace (1998), 215. On Damon, see also Barker (1984a), vol. 1, 168–9; Wallace (1991). 3 Wallace (2004). 4 On Damon’s ethical theory of music, see Anderson (1966), 38–42; Rossi (2000), 61–9; Wallace (1991), 30–1. 5 Translated by Wallace (2004), 257.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
185
To be sure, music and politics are intertwined in Damon’s life, as Robert Wallace has shown. Unfortunately, it is not possible to say to which qualities of character iamboi were believed to lead, nor the role they played in Damon’s political views.6 In spite of Plato’s pretended lack of accuracy, we can trust that he had Wrst-hand knowledge of Damon’s views.7 The passage is our earliest testimony to the division of metrical feet into segments called ‘the down’ and ‘the up’ ( Ø=ŁØ and ¼æØ).8 The units mentioned are the ‘compound enoplion’, the ‘dactyl’, the ‘heroos’,9 the ‘iambos’, and the ‘trochaeos’. The terms ‘heroos’ and ‘trochaeos’ are Wrst attested here. Others, ‘enoplion’ and ‘dactyl’, are names of rhythms mentioned by Aristophanes in the Clouds (l. 651; Wrst performed in 423; our revised version apparently dates to 418– 416),10 certainly before the composition of the Republic although probably not before Damon. It is possible that nomenclature was an important matter in Damon’s doctrine (cf. the repetition of OÇ Ø, ‘name’ or ‘term’). Yet Damon’s innovation might lie not in the terminology itself, but in his systematic description of the terms and their application. Judging from Clouds 648–51, where the character of Socrates distinguishes between æ æ and
æ æ (l. 642) on the one hand, and ŒÆ K ºØ and ŒÆ a Œ ıº (l. 651) on the other, the terms were probably in use in sophistic education.11 In the passage of the Republic, as Wilamowitz suggested, there is a reference to the three diVerent genres (ªÅ) of rhythm.12 The word genos has a special meaning in Greek rhythmical theory, referring not to a speciWc foot, but to a ratio, that is to say, a relationship between quantities. So we learn from Aristoxenus of Tarentum (born around 370 bce), a pupil of Aristotle: 6 Arist. Quint. 2.15. refers to Damon’s theory on the ethical eVect of various harmonies without further speciWcation. 7 Anderson (1966), 60–1, 75. 8 West (1984), 216; Wallace (1991), 46; Gentili and Lomiento (2003), 31; Wallace (2004), 258. 9 Opinions are divided with respect to the ‘dactyl’ and the ‘heroos’. If the ª is explanatory they refer to the same rhythm, the dactyl. However, Del Grande (1948) believes the ‘heroos’ might refer to cretic-paeonic. 10 Schol. Nub. 552; OCD3 s.v. ‘Aristophanes’. Cf. Wallace (2004), 258. 11 Bowie (1988) Wnds in this passage of the Clouds a reference to Damon and Socrates. 12 Wilamowitz-MoellendorV (1921), 65; Gentili and Lomiento (2003), 4.
186
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
$H b H ð HÞ ŒÆd ı åB ÞıŁØ Æ KØ åø æ Æ ªÅ K :
ÆŒ ıºØŒe ŒÆd e NÆ ØŒe ŒÆd e ÆØøØŒ : ˜ÆŒ ıºØŒe b s K Ø e K ð fiHÞ Yfiø º ªfiø; NÆ ØŒe b e K fiH ØºÆ fiø; ÆØøØŒe b e K fiH غ fiø. (Rhyth. II p. 24, ll. 14–17) There are three genera of feet that admit continuous rhythmic composition: the dactylic, the iambic (iambikon) and the paionic. The dactylic is that in equal ratio, the iambic (iambikon) that in duple, and the paionic that in hemiolic.13
Aristoxenus uses the expression ÆŒ ıºØŒe ª, ‘dactylic genre’, and the term ‘dactylic’ in general, for feet in the equal ratio, i.e. not exclusively for lkk but also for ll and kkl (2:2); and also for lklk, klkl; kllk (3:3), while the NÆ ØŒe ª, ‘iambic genre’, includes those feet whose elements stand at a double ratio: lk; kl and kkk (2:1).14 Unlike the iambic foot (kl), the pure iambic metron (klkl) belongs to the dactylic category, because thesis and arsis have an equal duration.15 As we have seen in Chapter 3, section 1, Aristotle too used the term iambos for a rhythm in the Rhetoric. In this passage iambos refers to ‘iambic rhythm’ and iambeia to ‘iambic trimeter’:
H b ÞıŁH . . . › YÆ ÆP K Ø ºØ H ººH ðØe ºØ Æ ø H æø NÆ EÆ çŁªª ÆØ ºª Þ. (Rh. 1408b33–1409a1) Of rhythms, . . . the iambic [iambos] by itself is the language of the many; thus, all people most often speak in iambics [iambeia].16
It is possible that Aristotle was acquainted with Damon’s theories, as his interpretation in the Rhetoric of the eVects of various rhythms suggests (Rh. 1408b33–1409a1, see Chapter 3, sect. 1). Plato’s reference
13 Translated by Barker (1984b), 189. 14 Pearson (1990), pp. xl and 330–1 (on book II). Cf. Arist. Quint. De Musica (chapter 16), 36–7. 15 This explains the puzzling expression › Œ ıº › ŒÆ a YÆ in P.Oxy. 2687, l. 4 (the only attestation of the word YÆ in Aristoxenus’ extant works). It refers to the iambic dipody, which has an equal ratio, i.e. thesis and arsis are of equal duration; West (1982), 108; (1992), 137 and n. 22; Gentili and Lomiento (2003), 95. The expression may have baZed the copyist of P.Oxy. 2687: . . . › ½½ØÆ Œ ıº › ŒÆ a ½½_Øƽ½Œ ıº . . . 16 Translated by Kennedy (1991), 238.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
187
to Damon, along with Aristotle’s and Aristoxenus’ testimonies, witness the continuity of theoretical speculation on rhythm in the context of musical theory. Although I focus here primarily on the use of the term iambos, it is clear that as early as Damon’s and Socrates’ time a technical vocabulary was well established, and was a matter of study in sophistic education. However, theoretical speculation on rhythm did not begin in Damon’s generation. Lasus of Hermione, one of the most inXuential Wgures in Greek music before the fourth century bce,17 was active in the last decades of the sixth century bce.18 Lasus was an innovator in many Welds of music19 and, according to the Suda, wrote the Wrst musicological treatise (æH b y æd ıØŒB º ª ªæÆł , s.v. ¸).20 Lasus’ output also included empirical research on acoustics. As West suggests, such achievements required a technical vocabulary, part of which was probably in use even before Lasus, within the oral tradition of musicians and teachers of instrumental playing.21 That one of the sections of the Pythian Nomos was called iambos is indicative of the use of the term in early musical practice (Strabo 9.3.10). The Pythian Nomos, a musical set composition for aulos, was part of the traditional repertoire at the games in Delphi from 586 bce. According to Pollux (4.77), it was Sacadas of Argos, a three-time winner at the Pythian contest, who invented the Pythian Nomos. (I shall return to the Pythian Nomos and other testimonies for the musical performance of iamboi in Chapter 8, sect. 4.) If the name of one of the movements referred to by Strabo, iambos, was the term in use in Sacadas’ time, and if Strabo can be trusted in that the name was connected to the rhythm, we could date the use of the term iambos for a rhythm to at least the early sixth century bce. In sum, iambos was certainly part of the technical Greek musical vocabulary by the mid-Wfth century bce (Damon), possibly in the 17 [Plu.] de Mus. 1141c. On Lasus of Hermione see Wallace (1998), 212; d’Angour (1997); Porter (2007). Privitera (1965), which I have not seen, collects and studies the relevant testimonies (Privitera, G. A. (1965), Laso di Ermione nella cultura ateniese e nella tradizione storiograWca, Rome). 18 Herodotus (7.6.3) mentions Lasus’ connection to Hipparchus. 19 Porter (2007). 20 Cf. Schol. Pind. Ol. 13.25; Schol. Ar. Av. 1403; Clem. Al. Strom. 1.16. 21 West (1992), 218; Franklin (2003), 295; Lomiento (unpublished), and personal communication. See Franklin (2003) for the oral, technical musical vocabulary during the archaic period.
188
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
late (Lasus) or the early (Sacadas’ Pythian Nomos) sixth century bce. During the classical period iambos remained in use as a rhythmical term as well as a name for a type of poetry.22 Well before we can discern clear-cut features in the generic sense of the term, our sources establish the rhythmical sense of iambos. Furthermore, if, as Wilamowitz suggested, Plato’s reference to Damon’s terminology has to do with the three diVerent genres of rhythm, and thus iambos was a technical term for a ratio shared by both the iambic and trochaic feet (equivalent to Aristoxenus’ iambikon genos), the use of iambos as a generic term for poems in trochaic tetrameters as well as iambic trimeters, attested already in Aristotle, would have foundations in early Greek musical thought.
2 . IAMBOS AS A GENERIC TERM
i. Herodotus (1.12) The earliest candidate for the use of iambos as the name of a poem is a passage in which Herodotus states that Archilochus was a contemporary of Gyges: ˚Æd a ÆF Æ IÆÆıı ˚Æƺ ø Œ ŒÆd IŒ Æ ÆP e å ŒÆd c ªıÆEŒÆ ŒÆd c ÆغŠŠˆªÅ; F ŒÆd æå ºå › —æØ; ŒÆ a e ÆP e åæ ª ; K N fiø æØ æfiø K ŁÅ. (Hdt. 1.12.5–8) Presently he [Gyges] stole out and slew Candaules as he slept, and thus made himself master of the king’s wife and sovereignty. He is mentioned in a threemetre iambos of Archilochus of Parus who lived about the same time.23
This is a key testimony for establishing Archilochus’ date, as ancient computations rely on Archilochus and Gyges being contemporary.24 22 Cf. Gentili and Lomiento (2003), 131. 23 Translated by Godley (1920), vol. 1, 17, with slight adaptation (Godley has ‘in the iambic verses’ instead of ‘in a three-metre iambos’). 24 Jacoby (1941); Lavelle (2002).
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
189
It is also an important testimony to the term iambos in the Wfth century bce. However, eminent scholars have suspected the text of faulty transmission, precisely in the part of the sentence that is relevant to our subject.25 The main objection to the authenticity of
F ŒÆd æå ºå . . . K N fiø æØ æfiø K ŁÅ is that Herodotus normally uses , ‘verse’, when referring to metre, e.g. K
æØ æfiø fiø, ‘in a three-metre verse’ (1.174.5) and K (Æ æfiø
fiø, ‘in a six-metre verse’ (1.47.2, 1.62.4, 5.60.1).26 In addition, it has been claimed that the phrase disturbs the connection27 and that Herodotus is unlikely to mention a poet without providing a quotation or some additional information that links the reference to his subject.28 Hence the phrase has been considered either a marginal note introduced into the text or another sort of interpolation. It will be necessary, therefore, before turning to the question of the meaning of iambos in the passage, to clear up all doubts about the transmitted text. In what follows I shall argue in favour of the authenticity of the paradosis, looking Wrst at Herodotus’ ways of referring to poetry, and second, at his incidental references to poets. Herodotus refers to poetry or quotes poetry, including epigrams and oracles, in a variety of ways. In some cases he uses technical terms to specify the metre of the verses in question. His usual term for doing so, but by no means the only one, is indeed tonos ( ). LSJ translates this term as ‘measure or metre’ with exclusive reference to the passages quoted below (Hdt. 1.47, 1.62, 1.174, 5.60).29 However, when the word is applied to sounds, it is usually associated with pitch rather than measure. In those instances Stephanus (s.v.) renders tonos as equivalent to å, ‘verse, line’. This is compatible with the use of tonos for something that can be stretched, such as cords, or 25 Nothing in the manuscript tradition substantiates the hypothesis of an interpolation. Following Wesseling’s remarks (Valckenaer and Wesseling (1763), 7) most editors bracket F ŒÆd . . . K ŁÅ: Schaefer (Leipzig, 1800–3); Kru¨ger (Berlin, 1855); Stein (1883), 17; Sayce (London, 1883); Legrand (1964), 37 n. 2; Asheri (1989); Asheri, Lloyd, and Corcella (2007), 84. The text is retained by Ba¨ehr (1856–61); DindorV (1887); Hude (Oxford, 19273), and Rose´n (Leipzig, 1987). The phrase is held as authentic by Crusius, RE s.v. ‘Archilochos’; Rohde (1878), 194–8; Blumenthal (1922), 14; Lloyd-Jones (1952–3), 39. 26 How and Wells (1912), 59; Hauvette (1905), 19–20; Asheri (1989), 271. 27 How and Wells (1912), 59; cf. Legrand (1964), 37. 28 Hauvette (1905), 20–1. 29 LSJ s.v. II 2 c.
190
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
in the case of an animal, tendons.30 Thus the English words ‘line’, ‘verse’, or even ‘strain’ seem a better translation of tonos than ‘measure’ or ‘metre’. As I suggest later on, Herodotus probably uses tonos instead of epos (, ‘line’, ‘verse’, ‘poetry’) because of the strong association of epos with the genres of epic poetry and elegy. Unlike K N fiø æØ æfiø, the words æØ æ and (Æ æ in Herodotus refer to oracles and verse inscriptions, and they all introduce quotations. The structure of these references is nevertheless similar, and thus deserves attention: (1) 1.47.2: —ıŁ Å K (Æ æfiø fiø ºª Ø; ‘The Pythian priestess uttered the following in hexameter verse’31 (followed by a quotation of a Wve-line oracle). (2) 1.62.4: ‹ ƒ æØg åæfi A K (Æ æfiø fiø ºªø ‘who came to him and prophesied as follows in hexameter verse’32 (followed by a quotation of a two-line oracle). (3) 1.174.5: b —ıŁ Å çØ åæfi A K æØ æfiø fiø, ‘Then, as they themselves say, the priestess gave them this answer in iambic verse’33 (followed by a quotation of a two-line oracle). (4) 5.60.1: æ b æ ı K (Æ æfiø fiø ºª Ø ‘A second tripod says, in hexameter verse’34 (followed by a quotation of a two-line inscription). (5) 5.61.1: æ b æ ı ºª Ø ŒÆd y K (Æ æfiø ‘The third tripod says, in hexameter (verse) again’35 (followed by a quotation of a two-line inscription). (6) 7.220.3: ÆF Æ çØ K Ø (Æ æØØ åæfi A ºª Æ z ‘which answer was thus given in hexameter verses’36 (followed by a quotation of a seven-line oracle). While tonos appears four times in these parallels (K æØ æfiø fiø, no. 3, K (Æ æfiø fiø, nos. 1, 2, 4), we Wnd one instance of epos 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
LSJ s.v. I 1, 2. Cf. º, limbs. Adapted from Godley (1920), vol. 1, 53. Adapted from Godley (1920), vol. 1, 73. Translated by Godley (1920), vol. 1, 219. Translated by Godley (1920), vol. 3, 65. Adapted from Godley (1920), vol. 3, 65. Adapted from Godley (1920), vol. 3, 537.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
191
(K Ø (Æ æØØ, no. 6) and one without tonos (K (Æ æfiø, no. 5). Thus, in answer to the main objection against the authenticity of Herodotus’ reference in our passage, the use of a term other than tonos is not unparalleled and it may not be as far from Herodotus’ language as it appears at Wrst sight. What does K N fiø æØ æfiø mean? The word iambos plays the same syntactic role in our passage as tonos and epea in the above examples, with trimetros functioning as attribute of the noun iambos. Therefore, a translation of K N fiø æØ æfiø as ‘in (an) iambic trimeter’37 would be diYcult to sustain because it takes æØ æfiø as a noun and N fiø as an attribute. The phrase should thus be rendered as ‘in a three-metre iambos’. As for the exact meaning of ‘in’, the fact that in Wve cases quotations of more than one verse are introduced with an expression in the singular, e.g. K (Æ æfiø fiø, ‘in a six-metre verse’, suggests that the preposition K, ‘in’, is used not for place, i.e. ‘in [the following?] sixmetre line’, but for instrument, means or manner, i.e ‘using a six-metre verse’.38 Is the distinction between the locative and instrumental uses of K relevant for the meaning of K N fiø æØ æfiø in our passage? In principle both interpretations are possible, ‘in a three-metre iambos’ (locative) and ‘using a three-metre iambos’ (instrumental). In the Wrst case iambos would refer to a type of poem, in the second, to either a type of poem or a rhythm. That Herodotus might be using iambos as the name of a rhythm goes against current scholarly consensus, according to which the expression ‘in a three-metre iambos’ makes reference to a composition, to a poem called iambos.39 Dover, for example, suggests ‘in a trimetric YÆ ’, ‘in an YÆ composed of trimeters’.40 Similarly West: ‘in a three-measure iambus’.41 Bartol follows the same line, ‘in three-unit-iambus’, but she may well be right in suggesting that the expression ‘might have implied both extra-metrical and metrical 37 Treu (1959), 119: ‘in einem iambischen Trimeter’; Gerber (1999a), 35: ‘in iambic trimeters’. 38 Powell (1938), s.v. K C 1 gives 39 instances of quasi-intrumental K ‘of the literary vehicle’. On the use of K for means and instrument see Ku¨hner–Gerth I.2, 464–6; LSJ s.v. K A. III ‘of the instrument, means or manner’. 39 Bartol (1993a), 33 and Kantzios (2005), 5, are open to considering the possibility that iambos in Herodotus refers to metre. 40 Dover (1964), 186. 41 West (1974), 38.
192
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
features’.42 However, as we have seen in the previous section of this chapter, there is evidence for the use of iambos for a type of rhythm in the Wfth century bce (Damon ap. Pl. R. 400b), and perhaps as early as the sixth century bce. Hence it is possible that in Herodotus iambos refers to the type of rhythm and trimetros to the number of metrical units. The main objection to this possibility is that the noun
æ æ, ‘trimeter’, on its own could be enough to denote the iambic trimeter, in the same way that æ æ can, on its own, refer to the trochaic tetrameter.43 In this sense the expression K N fiø æØ æfiø, as Bartol suggests, would be a pleonasm.44 However, could not the same be said of K Ø (Æ æØØ (no. 6)? Would not K (Æ æØØ, or conversely K Ø, be enough for introducing hexameters? Herodotus, following general practice, uses for quoting a single hexameter from the Odyssey (4.29), and Æ for hexameters or compositions in hexameters45 and in one case probably for an elegiac poem.46 Since the word epea is connected to epic and elegiac poetry, using K Ø would not suit an oracle. As for the possibility of using simply K (Æ æØØ, it seems that Herodotus uses æ æ and ( æ always as adjectives. In the only instance in which ( æ functions as a noun (no. 5) the context makes the implied noun, probably tonos, clear because K (Æ æfiø appears immediately after two quotations and after the expression in K (Æ æfiø fiø. In no. 6 (K Ø (Æ æØØ), where context does not help, a noun was probably perceived as needed, epea being the syntactical equivalent of tonos. The word iambos in our passage plays the same syntactic role. Thus, the phrase K N fiø æØ æfiø is not 42 Bartol (1993a), 33. 43 æ æ: Ar. Nu. 642; Arist. Po. 1447b11 (pl.); æ æ: Ar. Nu. 642, 645; X. Symp. 6.3; Arist. Rh. 1404a3; 1409a9; Po. 1459b37. Cf. West (1974), 38; Bartol (1993a), 33. 44 Bartol (1993a), 32–3. 45 When referring to utterances in verse Herodotus uses Æ for ‘lines’ or ‘verses’, namely hexameters, occasionally referring to quotations (2.116.3, 4, 6; 2.117 (Wrst instance); 4.32–33.1) or ‘compositions’ in hexameters, such as the Arimaspea by Aristeas of Proconnesus (4.12.1) or Homer’s Iliad, Odyssey, and the Cypria (2.116.3, 4, 6; 2.117 (second instance); 5.67.1), whose Homeric authorship is doubted. 46 The only Herodotean instance of K Ø (5.113.2) applied to poetry refers to a poem by Solon most probably written in elegiacs, based on its identiWcation with fr. 19W (cf. Plu. Sol. 26.2–4). Å is one of the general terms used for elegies before the end of the 5th cent. bce, cf. West (1974), 7.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
193
pleonastic, but is actually the clearest form of expression when a noun cannot be taken for granted. Let us look more carefully into the rationale behind Herodotus’ references to metre. On the one hand, as the use of K ªæÆÆ and shows,47 he does not always specify the metre of his quotations. On the other hand, he uses æ æ and ( æ for oracles (no. 1, 2, 3, 6) and verse inscriptions (no. 4 and 5), but never uses ( æ in referring to literary works. From his own quotation (no. 3) it is clear that oracles may occasionally be delivered in iambic trimeters; there is also evidence for the sporadic use of this metre in verse inscriptions of the period.48 Therefore, it seems that Herodotus provides information only in cases where more than one type of metre or rhythm are possible, namely oracles and inscriptions. I believe F ŒÆd æå ºå . . . K N fiø æØ æfiø can be assimilated to this category. For Archilochus composed in more than one type of metre or rhythm. If Herodotus used the term iambos for a type of composition, it could in itself involve various metres (iambic trimeters, trochaic tetrameters, and possibly epodic strophes). If he used iambos for a rhythm, that rhythm could in principle be combined in a number of metres. The expression K N fiø æØ æfiø is not a pleonasm at all, but a manner of avoiding ambiguity at a time when there was no standard way of referring to metre. For Herodotus does not use the terms Kº ª E and NÆ E. It has been suggested that the term iambeion was not yet available,49 but it seems that he chose a system of reference to metre that never became standard. The inelegance of expression is similar to that of K (Æ æfiø fiø, a phrasing not attested again until the Wrst century ce.50
47 Herodotus uses the term K ªæÆÆ twice, for inscriptions written in either hexameters (5.59) or elegiacs (7.228.4). 48 West (1974), 2; (1982), 40. Verse inscriptions in iambic rhythm before the 4th cent. are found in CEG: funerary inscriptions, Attic: 28, 36 (?), 46 (?), 52, 76 (?); Thessaly: 126; Naxos?: 160; Thasos: 171. Dedicatory inscriptions, Acropolis: 197, 220, 230 (?), 258, 291; Attic: 318, 333; Delos: 421; Naxos: 452, 458; Boeotia: 461–5, 469, 473, 476, 477. Kantzios (2005), 133–42 surveys the archaic epigraphic evidence and concludes that by the mid-6th cent. the iambic trimeter ceased to be used for serious subject matter. 49 Cf. West (1974), 8 n. 7; Bowie (1986), 25–6. 50 The use of for a line of verse is rare and it appears again in Josephus, AJ 2.346 (cf. Galenus, De Methodo Medendi 10.12.14).
194
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Herodotus’ references to poetry, then, do not always make metre explicit (cf. K ªæÆÆ and ). If they do, it is only in cases where there would be more than one possibility, namely oracles, verse inscriptions, and iambos. In most of these appears, in one case , in another, YÆ . Hence, there is nothing extraordinary in the expression K N fiø æØ æfiø. In fact, what distinguishes the reference to Archilochus’ ‘three-metre iambos’ from the other instances of the words trimeter and hexameter is the lack of a quotation. Such a reference with no quotation assimilates our passage to a group of incidental references to poets, which brings us to the second objection to the authenticity of Hdt. 1.12. One of the arguments raised against the authenticity of the phrase
F ŒÆd æå ºå . . . K N fiø æØ æfiø K ŁÅ is that it has no real connection to the rest of the text.51 Hauvette, for example, claims that when Herodotus mentions poets he always adduces either a quotation or something that relates to his subject. But our phrase seems to have no raison d’eˆtre.52 However, an examination of Herodotus’ references to poets shows that the historian does not always live up to the modern expectation of organic narrative coherence. True, in many cases the references are relevant to the context in which they appear, or they provide a reference for dating an event, or they are expanded in such a way as to make an independent narrative unit, as in the story of Arion (1.23–4). In other cases, as Hauvette suggests, incidental references to poets play a role in the narrative: evidence is adduced to argue that Rhodopis was a fellow-slave (ıº) of Aesop (2.134.3). Aeschylus’ departure from Artemis’ traditional Greek genealogy is made to derive from the description of Egyptian mythology (2.156.6). A quotation (or adaptation) of Pindar’s words provides a tale with a proverbial closure (3.38.4). Polycrates’ liaison with Anacreon seems to allude to a scandal that Herodotus prefers to omit (3.121).53 Hesiod and Homer are mentioned as witnesses to the 51 How and Wells (1912), 59. 52 Hauvette (1905), 20–1. For surveys of Herodotus’ references to poets and their purpose, see Parke (1946), 83 n. 8; Verdin (1977), 54–65. See Marincola (2006) for an engagement with the various ways in which Herodotus was inXuenced by his poetic predecessors and further references. Ford (2006b) is an outline for future work on the topic. 53 How and Wells (1912), 295.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
195
name Hyperboreans (4.32). Alcaeus is said to have Xed from battle against the Athenians and to have written a poem recounting the experience (5.95). A Wne imposed on Phrynichus illustrates the extent of Athenian grief over Miletus (6.21.2). A reference to Simonides appears after the quotation of three epigrams, one or all of them by him (7.228.4). Oracle writers are mentioned because some events are seen as the fulWlment of their prophecies (8.96), whereas Lasus of Hermione’s authority seems to reinforce Onomacritus’ reputation as a forger of oracles (7.6.3). All these fulWl a function in the narrative. However, other references do not seem to have a narrative raison d’eˆtre. Compare the following: Sappho (2.135): +æÆ b ‰ ºı !HØ I Å K ı غÅ, K º œ Æçg ººa ŒÆ Œ æ Å Ø.54 Charaxus, after giving Rhodopis her freedom, returned to Mytilene and was bitterly attacked by Sappho in one of her poems.55 Simonides (5.102): ˚Æd ººf ÆP H ƒ —æÆØ ç ıØ; ¼ººı OÆ ; C b c ŒÆd ¯PƺŒ Å æÆ Åª Æ ¯ æ æØø; çÆÅç æı IªHÆ IÆæÆØæÅŒ
Æ ŒÆd e Øø ø F ˚ Å ı ººa ÆN Ł Æ. Many men of renown among them the Persians put to the sword, of whom was Evalcides the general of the Eretrians, one that had won crowns as victor in the lists and been greatly praised (ººa ÆN Ł Æ) by Simonides of Ceos.56 Solon (5.113): $ æÆı b F æÆ ı ¼ººØ ººd ŒÆd c ŒÆd ˇØº › +æØ; ‹ æ c ˚ıæ ø I ÆØ æÅ ; ŒÆd › º ø Æغ f æØ Œıæ › *غŒæı ð*غŒæı b ı; e ºø › ŁÅÆE IØŒ K ˚æ K Ø ÆY ıæø ºØ ÆÞ. So the army was routed, and many were there slain; among whom was Onesilus, son of Chersis, who had wrought the Cyprian revolt, and the king of the Solians, Aristocyprus son of Philocyprus—that Philocyprus whom Solon of Athens, when he came to Cyprus, praised (ÆY ) in a poem above all other despots.57 54 That Charaxus was Sappho’s brother is mentioned earlier in the passage. 55 Translated by Godley (1920), vol. 1, 439. 56 Translated by Godley (1920), vol. 3, 15, with slight adaptation (Godley has ‘belauded’ instead of ‘praised’). 57 Translated by Godley (1920), vol. 3, 137, with slight adaptation (Godley has ‘extolled’ instead of ‘praised’).
196
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
These references do not appear to be essential, but, although one could say that they disturb the Xow of the narrative,58 editors seem to Wnd no fault in them. Indeed, they are interesting in themselves: ‘by the way, this person is mentioned by a famous poet’. They may serve the purpose of providing a chronological referent for the people or events in question, as Herodotus has a clear interest in matters of date and authorship of poetic works.59 Moreover, mentioning a famous poet shows, as Ford suggests, Herodotus as a man of sophisticated culture.60 These references may be described as parenthetical, but are by no means interpolations. As our passage in Hdt. 1.12, they provide details about the metre or genre in the form of K º œ; K Ø (cf. K N fiø æØ æfiø). In addition, they state the poets’ general intention through a verb that qualiWes the reference as favourable or not. As the reporting verbs ŒÆ Œ æ Å ; ÆN Ł Æ, and ÆY suggest, the evaluation is made in terms of the two macro-genres of praise and blame.61 Even the more neutral K ŁÅ, ‘mentioned’ at 1.12 has a parallel in Herodotus’ reference to an earlier passage in his own work: F ŒÆd æ
æ K ŁÅ (Hdt. 1.85), ‘of whom I made mention earlier’. In short, this type of apparently disconnected reference to poets was part of Herodotus’ style. In view of these parallels the reference to Archilochus appears much less of an oddity. To conclude, examination of Herodotus’ references to poetry shows that tonos is not an invariable usage in referring to metre, and that the apparent pleonasm of K N fiø æØ æfiø may simply be an attempt to avoid ambiguity. Comparison with Herodotus’ incidental references to poets suggests that parenthetical phrases pointing out that someone has been mentioned, praised, or attacked by a famous poet are very much in keeping with Herodotus’ style. Therefore, I see no real reason to suspect that the text of 1.12 may not be authentic. Now that doubts about the paradosis have been cleared, we can procede to explore all possible interpretations of Herodotus 1.12. The two groups of references examined above, those using technical terms, and the incidental ones, provide models to which our passage may be compared. Is it, like K æØ æfiø fiø, a reference to metre and rhythm? Or is it similar to K º Ø, ‘in a song’ or ‘in a melic 58 As does Baehr (1856–61), 31. 59 Verdin (1977), 58–9. 60 Ford (2006b), 4. 61 Verdin (1977), 64–5.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
197
poem’, or K Ø, ‘in verses’ or ‘in dactylic (i.e. hexameter or elegiacs) verses’, a reference to the type of composition? Three possible interpretations suggest themselves. 1. In a three-metre iambos, where iambos refers to rhythm and the preposition K has locative meaning, i.e. in a single iambic line. This was proposed by Baehr,62 who took it as a reference to the iambic line mentioning Gyges (Archil. 19.1W). True, the poem was a famous one. The line h Ø a ˆª ø F ºıåæı º Ø, ‘I do not care about the possessions of Gyges rich in gold’63 probably became proverbial, as is suggested by Aristotle’s quotation and the later imitation in the Anacreontea (fr. 8W, see Chapter 5; Arist. Rh. 1418b24, see Chapter 3, sect. 1). However, a reference to a single line, uncited, seems too much of an oddity, and Baehr’s suggestion has been rightly set aside by later scholarship. 2. Using a three-metre iambos, where iambos refers to rhythm and the preposition K, ‘in’, has instrumental meaning.64 This interpretation is possible in principle. The main objection against it is that Herodotus’ references to metre with instrumental ‘in’ consistently introduce quotations (no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Stating the rhythm and number of metres has perhaps little raison d’eˆtre without a quotation. 3. In a three-metre iambos, where iambos refers to a type of poem and the preposition K has locative meaning, i.e. in an iambic poem made of trimeters. While the Wrst interpretation should be discarded and the second one can be objected to on grounds of the lack of quotation, the third one has become the scholarly consensus, particularly after Dover’s remarks were published in 1964.65 It follows naturally from the interpretation of iambos in Archil. 215W as a type of composition deWned by its occasion of performance.66 If Herodotus uses the term iambos as a type of composition, any details we may be able to gather about the poem referred to may provide some information about the nature of 62 Baehr (1856–61), 31. 63 Adapted from Gerber (1999a), 93. 64 See above, n. 38. 65 Dover (1964), 186. 66 This interpretation has been favoured by many modern scholars: Dover (1964), 186; West (1974), 38; Degani (1988a), 1005; Bartol (1993a), 32–3. Cf. discussions in Brown (1997), 14; Kantzios (2005), 5–6.
198
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
the genre itself or at least about the meaning of the generic label for this particular instance. Even though Herodotus oVers no quotation, one can try to infer the kind of poem that he had in mind. Attempts to do so have been made in two directions. The Wrst and main line of interpretation assumes that Herodotus refers to Archil. 19W.67 The second suggests that Archilochus dealt with Gyges’ story in yet another poem. Since antiquity scholars have read Herodotus’ passage as referring to Archil. 19W,68 a fragment quoted by Plutarch (de Tranqu. Animi 10.470b–c): h Ø a ˆª ø F ºıåæı º Ø, P xº ÇBº; P IªÆ ÆØ Ł H æªÆ; ªºÅ PŒ Kæø ıæÆ : I æŁ ªæ K Ø OçŁÆºH KH. The possessions of Gyges rich in gold are of no concern to me, not yet have I been seized with jealousy of him, I do not envy the deeds of the gods, and I have no love of tyranny. That is beyond my sights.69
This is the only extant fragment of Archilochus in which Gyges is mentioned. Although there is no proof that Herodotus was referring to this poem, it seems a justiWed assumption, for later, at least, the poem was famous: Plutarch quoted it, and before him Aristotle (Rh. 1418b28), and ancient authors already noted the imitation of Homer, Od. 14.228.70 If the assumption is allowed, some features of the ‘three-metre iambos’ mentioned by Herodotus become apparent: it is a poem written in iambic trimeters, having a Wrst-person speaker, with reXective content (rejection of wealth, envy of the gods) that may possibly have political overtones (the rejection of tyranny). Aristotle gives additional information about this poem at Rh. 1418b (Chapter 3, sect. 1), although unlike Plutarch, he only quotes the initial words. Aristotle suggests that a speaker should sometimes put certain things about himself or about someone else in another person’s mouth. So Isocrates attributes to others Xattering remarks 67 e.g. Bartol (1993a), 32. 68 Cf. Juba ap. RuWn. de Metris Terenti, GL VI, p. 563: cum de Archilocho Pario referret, qui Gygae fabulam optime complexus est, ita ( . . . ) meminit autem versus eius Herodotus, quem applicui: h Ø a ˆª ø F ºıåæı º Ø. 69 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 93. 70 Hauvette (1905), 249.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
199
about himself (Philippus 4–7 and Antidosis 141–9), or alternatively attributes to others criticism of Philippus (Philippus 73–5),71 whereas Haemon reports the Thebans’ comments about Antigone to his father (vv. 688–700). Two examples by Archilochus follow, in which there is a persona speaking: the father in fr. 122W and Charon the carpenter in fr. 19W. As we have seen in Chapter 3, section 1, in both poems psogos, ‘vituperation’, is an eVect that the poems achieve not by addressing individuals by name and insulting them, but through dramatic impersonation, perhaps embedded in a narrative context. However, there is nothing vituperative in the extant lines of Archil. 19W. As it happens with fragmentary poetry, one cannot be sure to what extent fragments are representative of the poems they come from. Making inferences about an entire poem can prove wrong, as the case of Archil. 25W exempliWes. The second line of this fragment (Iºº ¼ºº ¼ººøØ ŒÆæ Å NÆ ÆØ, ‘but diVerent people are warmed at heart by diVerent things’)72 expresses a common gnomic idea73 and was quoted on its own by authors such as Sextus Empiricus (Adv. Math. 11.44) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 6.7.3–5). The line probably circulated on its own in a gnomologion, and it was as such that it appeared in modern editions (e.g. Bergk fr. 36), until a papyrus published in 1954 (P.Oxy. 2310 fr. 1 col. i 41–8) revealed the unexpected application of the gnome to sexual preferences. Thus, a structure involving serious or reXective openings followed by obscenity is not alien to Archilochean composition. Archil. 19W may have belonged to a poem with a similar structure. Not that it necessarily involved obscenity. What this parallel suggests is that a gnomic or reXective beginning may have an unexpected twist. A possible exploitation of such a surprise eVect is the disclosure of a poem’s speaker at the end of it. As we have seen in Chapter 3, it is usually believed that the speaker, Charon, was revealed at the end of Archil. 19W, a technique also used by Callimachus and Horace. In sum, we may conjecture that Archil. 19W was for Aristotle a good example of vituperation because at the end it disclosed its speaker, perhaps other than the one an audience may have expected, or
71 Lennartz (2000b), 7. 72 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 101. 73 Cf. Semon. 7.42; Pind. I. 1.47.
200
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
because after a gnomic beginning there was a surprising turn in tone or subject matter. To return to Herodotus. If he alluded to Archil. 19W, the term iambos would apply to a poem written in iambic trimeters spoken by the persona of Charon the carpenter, and not the poet in propria persona; a poem with a remarkably reXective beginning, which at some point turned to psogos, or resulted in psogos, by disclosing the identity of the speaker or by some unexpected twist. A second line of interpretation of Herodotus’ allusion was suggested by Lloyd-Jones. Claiming that the reference to Gyges in Archil. 19W is too incidental, he thought that it would be easier to understand the purpose of Herodotus’ comment if he had mentioned his source. This source could have been another poem by Archilochus dealing more fully with the Gyges story.74 Lloyd-Jones touched on the possibility that the so-called Gyges tragedy75 was part of an iambos by Archilochus ‘deliberately or accidentally translated into the Attic dialect’,76 but later withdrew the suggestion.77 The hypothesis that Herodotus was referring to a poem that did survive has the advantage of giving more weight to the historian’s comment: he would be introducing his source, probably what some scholars call ‘the obvious source’,78 whose credibility would be enhanced by Archilochus’ being contemporary to the facts adduced. This interpretation, however, has two major disadvantages. First, it actually leaves us with no text, unless we accept Strauss Clay’s hypothesis that the poem in question was fr. 23W, and that ‘the woman of frag. 23 is the wife of Candaules and the speaker none other than Gyges’79—an ingenious hypothesis but based on a textual supplement.80 A second argument 74 This may be supported by Juba’s testimony: ‘[Archilochus] qui Gygae fabulam optime complexus est’, Lloyd-Jones (1952–3), 34. 75 Lobel (1950). 76 Lloyd-Jones (1952–3), 41. 77 Lloyd-Jones (1990), 234 nn. 20–6. The note did not appear in the original publication, Lloyd-Jones (1966). 78 Fehling (1989), 88–95 and passim. 79 Strauss Clay (1986), 11. 80 It is certainly possible that Archilochus dealt with the Gyges story in another poem besides fr. 19W, and in some detail. The internal evidence adduced by Clay is nevertheless weak: there is no reason to suppose, based on the supplement to 23.20 and to Et. Gud. 537.26 (Sturz), that Archilochus ‘conWned his use of the word [ ıæÆ ] to contexts involving Gyges’ (p. 13). The supplement ½ æÅ is ingenious, but it postulates an eponymous founder-hero who is not attested elsewhere (Strauss Clay (1986), 14).
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
201
against postulating another Gyges poem is that it goes against Occam’s razor.81 Although I Wnd it more probable that Herodotus 1.12 refers to Archil. 19W, I believe it is worth drawing the conclusion that would follow from this line of interpretation, in case a new papyrus should emerge to support it. Accordingly, the term iambos in Herodotus (1.12) would refer to a poem written in iambic trimeters, dealing with contemporary historical material, either in simple narrative or, accepting Strauss Clay’s hypothesis, in narrative with a large component of dialogue. As this interpretation is no longer linked to Aristotle’s ‰ æå ºå łª Ø, the poem need not have involved psogos. Let us recapitulate. There is no reason to doubt that Herodotus’ reference to Archilochus at 1.12 is authentic. The expression K N fiø æØ æfiø can be understood as: 1. Using a three-metre iambos, where iambos refers to rhythm. This interpretation has parallels in Herodotus’ references to the metre of inscriptions or oracles, but unlike them, the passage oVers no quotation, thus rendering this possibility weak. 2. In a three-metre iambos, where iambos refers to a type of poem, i.e. an iambic poem made of trimeters. This interpretation has parallels in Herodotus’ incidental references to poets that include the type of poem, namely K º Ø (Sappho), K Ø (Solon). Since in both cases Herodotus alludes to a single poem by Archilochus, it may be better not to phrase our interpretation as an ‘either— or’. It is possible that the term iambos was used in Herodotus’ time in both senses, as the name of a rhythm and as the name of a poetic genre. The ambiguity may be solved by taking iambos as a generic term that nevertheless has rhythmical connotations.
ii. Aristophanes and the Wrst quotation of an iambos (Ra. 661) Aristophanes cites Hipponax for the sake of making a joke in the Frogs, a play that won a prize at the Lenaea of 405 bce. At line 661 81 I thank the second anonymous reader for this suggestion.
202
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Dionysos cries ‘Apollo!’ because of the pain inXicted on him, but then pretends to be reciting poetry, an iambos by Hipponax: (˜.) @ºº;—‹ ı ˜Bº j —ıŁH å Ø. (˛`.) XºªÅ : PŒ XŒıÆ; (˜.) PŒ ªøª ; K d YÆ ÆŒ I Øfi ÅŒ Å. dionysus. Apollo—you who are perhaps residing in Delos or Pytho. xanthus. He felt pain. Didn’t you hear? dionysus. It wasn’t I, since I was recalling an iambic poem [iambos] of Hipponax.82 Aristophanes uses a similar technique in the following lines (664–5), where Dionysos begins by screaming ‘Poseidon’ and continues with a quotation which the scholiast identiWes as from Sophocles’ Laocoon (fr. 371). Both quotations are similarly addressed to gods, and the diVerence between the genres practised by Hipponax and Sophocles is irrelevant for the comic eVect. One can imagine that after exclaiming ‘Apollo!’ (line 661) and ‘Poseidon!’ (line 664) the actor changed the intonation to make the quotations clear in an oral rendition.83 Aristophanes’ identiWcation of the author of line 661 has been controversial since antiquity. The scholiast says that the line is by Ananius: ‘Because of his pain and confusion he doesn’t know what he is saying, since the line is not from Hipponax but from Ananius’.84 (‰ IºªÆ ŒÆd ıªŒ åı PŒ r ºª Ø; K d På ÆŒ Iºº Æ ı). We should rule out the possibility that the scholiast is wrong or that Aristophanes simply made a mistake. Either Aristophanes’ error was intentional or the attribution of the fragment was already dubious in antiquity. Since the scholiast says that it is the character and not Aristophanes who does not know what 82 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 503, with slight adaptation (Gerber: ‘iambic line’). Like West and Degani, Gerber cites the fragment as Ananius fr. 1. 83 Dover (1993), 274–5 suggests that the actor probably sings the second quotation, and that Sophocles’ original may have been modiWed by Aristophanes. If so, the Wrst quotation may also have been modiWed, possibly with a mistaken attribution to Hipponax. 84 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 505.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
203
he is saying, he or his source probably believed that the confusion was intentional. It is of course attractive to see here a sophisticated literary game. However, for this technique to be eVective at least part of the audience has to perceive Dionysos’ mistake and to know that the line does not come from a poem by Hipponax. This might be too much to expect from Aristophanes’ audience.85 Degani correctly pointed out that such a joke would only work if a famous line by a famous poet was attributed to an obscure author, but not the other way round.86 It would also work if they were both famous. Of course, Ananius could have been more important than we think, or at least one of his poems could have been fairly well known. As we have seen in Chapter 1, section 3, this is not the only case of confusion between Hipponax and Ananius, and the attribution of frr. 2W and 3W is also problematic. It is possible, as Degani proposes, that Aristophanes and the scholiasts had access to diVerent data.87 At any rate, both West and Degani consider the fragment as by Ananius. Following a hypothesis by Welcker (1817),88 they explain the scholiast’s confusion between the two poets through a supposition that Ananius’ poems circulated in a volume together with Hipponax’ work.89 For our purposes, the question of whether the line belongs to a poem written by Hipponax or by Ananius is not a critical one. What is certain is that Aristophanes took for granted his audience’s familiarity with something called iambos and an author called ‘Hipponax’. A more fundamental question is whether the word iambos refers to the rhythm of the line (‘I was recalling an iambic line by Hipponax’) or to the type of composition the line comes from (‘I was recalling an iambic poem by Hipponax’). That iambos refers not to the poem but to the speciWc line quoted, naming it by its rhythm, is in principle not completely impossible. However, unlike other instances of iambos for which we have no material for comparison (as in Archilochus fr. 215W, and Herodotus 1.12), we have enough of Aristophanes’ work to be able to answer the question. Twice in the Frogs Aristophanes uses the word iambeion for verses in iambic rhythm, in lines 1133 85 Masson (1962), 33; Rosen (1988a), 15 n. 30. 86 Degani (1984), 27. 87 Degani (1984), 27. 88 Welcker (1817), 109. 2 89 West, IEG II, 34; Degani (1984), 27. Degani suggests that verses from other choliambic poets were also included in one volume. Welcker, Meineke, Schneidewin, and Bergk all edited the fragment as Hipponax’ (Degani (1984), 27 and 91 n. 43).
204
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
and 1204.90 The term iambeion, as we shall see in section 4 of this chapter, appears side by side with elegeion (Kº ª E), ‘elegiac’, somewhat earlier in an elegy by Critias (4W) probably from around 430 bce. In the fourth century iambeion is the standard term used to name iambic trimeters of both comedy and tragedy. The presence of iambos and iambeion in the Frogs indicates that the diVerentiation we found in Aristotle (Chapter 3, sect. 1) applies to Aristophanes as well: iambeion was used for an iambic line, the iambic trimeter, whereas iambos was used for a composition (or for a rhythmical unit as in Damon, although this is not the case in Aristophanes). Thus Aristophanes cites from a poem termed iambos. According to the scholiast, the quotation comes from a poem beginning with the following lines: @ºº;—‹ ı ˜Bº j —ıŁH å Ø. j ˝; j ºÅ ; j Ł Æ ˚ºæ ¥Œı ŒÆŁ ƒæ ; j ŒŁÆ Iç ÆØ. Apollo, you who are perhaps residing in Delos or Pytho or Naxos or Miletus or holy Clarus, come to your temple or you will end up among the Scythians.91
This fragment can help us characterize the poem to which Aristophanes applied the term iambos: it is a poem written in iambic trimeters that begins with an invocation to Apollo in the various places where he dwells. The last words (j ŒŁÆ Iç ÆØ) contain a twist similar to other fragments by Hipponax beginning with a prayer (cf. frr. 32W, 34W, 38W). They suggest that the address to the gods has no serious purpose.92 This is a parody of prayer as a speech act and also a parody of the cletic hymn. A detail of metre in Aristophanes’ passage deserves attention, for what it may reveal about the perception of Hipponax. The line quoted as coming from an iambos is an iambic trimeter in the usual form, i.e. with a short syllable in the penultimate position. However, Hipponax was mostly associated by later scholars with the type of iambic trimeter that has a long syllable in the penultimate position, a metre 90 One might object that the word iambeion would not Wt at the beginning of the iambic trimeter except perhaps in synecphonesis, and it would in a diVerent position. 91 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 503. 92 Degani (1984), 27–8.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
205
called choliambic, ‘limping iambos’ (x l k l x l k l x l l l). A variation of this pattern is the ischiorrhogic, which ends with Wve long syllables (x l k l x l k l l l l l), usually associated with Ananius by ancient authors, but also occasionally appearing in Hipponax.93 The fact that the line quoted by Aristophanes is not metrically marked is not signiWcant in itself, but it is so in comparison with a passage by Rhinthon of Taras that also mentions Hipponax. Rhinthon composed plays in west-Greek Doric in the early third century bce.94 His plays were probably called phlyakes95 and included a mixture of tragic and comic elements. In a fragment from his Orestes transmitted by Hephaestion (Enchiridion 1.5 p. 4, ll. 12–14 Consbr.) a character utters an iambic trimeter ending with Wve long syllables (x l k l x l k l l l l l ), and another character objects that the metre is Hipponax’: A. ‹ ˜Ø ı ÆP e KºÅ Ł Å. B. ÆŒ e æ. A. P Ø º Ø. (fr. 8 Austin) A. I wish Dionysos himself would destroy you. B. The metre is Hipponax’s. A. I don’t care! Unlike Aristophanes’ reference to Hipponax in the Frogs, there is no literal quotation here, but the imitation of a rhythm, a metrical quotation as it were. Rhinthon’s ‘metaprosodic joke’96 implies the expectation that his audience would perceive the rhythmical nuance. Such sophistication does not seem to be exceptional in Rhinthon, whom modern scholars tend to see as a learned Alexandrian poet rather than an author of provincial popular farces.97 Both Aristophanes and Rhinthon mention Hipponax in plays that were performed before audiences and both authors expected at least part of their public to know about him. However, for Rhinthon metre on its own characterizes Hipponax, while for Aristophanes it is not a speciWc 93 West (1982), 41. 94 On Rhinthon, see Olson (2007), 13–16, with further references. 95 The term çºÆŒ appears in an epigram by Nossis, 10 G–P (¼ AP 7.414). Hephaestion 4.10 introduces Rhinthon’s fragment with the expression K N fiø, which clearly refers to rhythm. See Olson (2007), 13. 96 Taplin (1993), 51. 97 Taplin (1993), 49–52.
206
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
metre, but rather features related to structure (parody) and content (humorous). Hence, the comparison between Aristophanes’ Frogs 661 and Rhinthon’s Orestes fr. 8 suggests a shift in the perception of what was typical of Hipponax, a shift that probably took place towards the end of the fourth century bce. Returning to our passage, Aristophanes uses the term iambos in the Frogs as denomination of a poem. The poem referred to is composed in iambic trimeters and it involves parody of known poetic forms (prayer and cletic hymn). In addition, it is possible that for Aristophanes and his audience, rather than a speciWc metre, namely, the choliambic, certain types of structure, content, and purpose were perceived as typical of Hipponax’ work.
iii. Iamboi among literary genres in Plato So far we have found the term iambos in a reference by Herodotus and in a quotation by Aristophanes and have worked towards the conclusion that in both cases the term is used for a type of poem where the concept of a literary genre can be discerned. In Plato we Wnd the term iamboi listed twice among other names of songs, unambiguously indicating that the term denotes a generic concept. Plato mentions iambos at Ion 534c, a passage introducing the idea that poetic expertise comes from divine inspiration.98 Within a reply to Ion, who has claimed to be able to comment on Homer better than anyone else but not so on any other poet, Socrates emphasizes how distinct the specialization of poets and rhapsodes is. – s P åfi Å ØF ŒÆd ººa ºª ŒÆd ŒÆºa æd H æƪ ø; u æ f æd ˇæı; Iººa Ł fi Æ æfi Æ; F x ŒÆ Ø E ŒÆºH Kç n FÆ ÆP e uæÅ ; › b ØŁıæ ı; › b KªŒØÆ; › b æåÆ Æ; › Å; › N ı: a ¼ººÆ çÆFº ÆP H ŒÆ K Ø: P ªaæ åfi Å ÆF Æ ºªıØ Iººa Ł fi Æ ı Ø; K ; N æØ99 (e åfi Å ŒÆºH M Æ ºª Ø; Œi æd H ¼ººø ± ø. (Pl. Ion 534b8–c7) So, because it is not art but divine dispensation that enables them to compose poetry and say many Wne things about the world, as you do about Homer, 98 For the opposite view see Smp. 223d3 V.; Rijksbaron (2007), 171. 99 Rijksbaron (2007), 82: Y æ æØ.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
207
every individual poet can only compose well what the Muse has set him to do— one dithyrambs, one encomia, one hyporchemata, one epic, one iambics [iamboi]. They are no good at anything else. This is because their utterances are the result not of art but of divine force. If they could utter on any one theme by art, they would also be able to do so on every other.100
In this passage as a whole (533e9–535a1) Socrates speaks not only of rhapsodes but also of poets (ØÅ Æ 533e6, 534a7, 534e4; ºØ 533e8, 534a1, 6) and interpreters ((æÅB 534e4).101 In order to make Socrates’ point regarding inspiration the three aspects of poetic activity, composition, performance, and interpretation at rhapsodic performances, are assimilated to prophecy.102 However, the subjects of the verb ‘to compose’ (Ø E, the subjects are announced by › b . . . › b . . .) are not rhapsodes, given that dithyramboi and hyporchemata require a group of singing and dancing performers, a chorus. The grammatical subjects of ‘to compose’ are the poets. It is the poets who do not compose or speak beautifully about things by art (techne)—like Ion who does not speak of Homer by art (u æ f æd ˇæı)—but by inspiration. Furthermore, Socrates’ point is that each poet receives inspiration to compose in a speciWc genre. The series › b . . . › b . . . is therefore a list of poets ŒÆ a ªÅ, by genre. Iamboi thus appear last in a series including dithyrambs, enkomia, hyporchemata,103 and epic. Is it possible to pinpoint a feature that is common to all members? No mention is made of dramatic poetry, perhaps, as Murray suggests, ‘in order to sustain the close identiWcation of poet and performer’.104 However, for choral genres such as dithyramb and hyporchema this close identiWcation is not straightforward. The topic of inspiration must also lie behind the absence of tragedy and comedy. Indeed, Plato was probably not prepared to credit genres that consist entirely of impersonation with inspiration. Besides the fact that the genres mentioned are non-dramatic, the list 100 Translated by D. A. Russell, in Russell and Winterbottom (1972), 43. 101 On (æÅ in Plato’s Ion, see Rijksbaron (2007), 124–8. 102 Socrates (533e9–535a1) makes constant reference to inspiration (Ł 533e4 bis, 52, 534b5; KŁıØÇ Ø 533e5; PŒ çæø 534a1, 2, 5; Œçæø 534b5; ›æ E 534c3), prophecy ( Ø 534d1; åæÅfiø E 534b7; åæÅfiø 534d1) and oVers comparisons with Bacchae (534a4) and Korybantes (534a1). 103 The word æåÅÆ is Wrst attested here. 104 Murray (1996), 119.
208
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
still appears unsystematic. Epic, for example, is a solo performance, while the original performances of dithyrambs and hyporchemata are choral. The latter involve music and dance, whereas in Plato’s time the former was probably not sung at all. The genres also involve diVerent addressees: before the Hellenistic period enkomia are songs sung in praise of men105 whereas dithyrambs are usually associated with Dionysos106 and hyporchemata with Apollo.107 To Wnd a common feature of the genres in Socrates’ list we must look at aspects of performance. The dithyramboi were performed at religious occasions and festivals. In Athens they were part of institutionalized musical contests funded by the city. Early enkomia were sung chieXy after athletic victories,108 on public or semi-public occasions. Late evidence suggests that hyporchemata were performed on special occasions at religious festivals and sacriWces.109 Å, which refers here to epic poetry and possibly includes elegiac poetry, were performed by rhapsodes at festivals all over the Greek-speaking world (cf. Ion’s poetic circuit mentioned at the beginning of the dialogue); and they were presented in the category of rhapsody at musical contests in Athens.110 Although these genres do not share any single occasion of performance, the fact that they were most conspicuously performed on public occasions is the rationale behind their inclusion in the list. Public occasions imply a role in the life of the city and from this communal role stems the philosopher’s interest. As we shall see in the next testimony, Plato took it for granted that iamboi could be performed along with comedy at IªH , ‘contests’, held at religious festivals. In Plato’s Ion 534c iamboi thus appear among genres of non-dramatic poetry that were often
105 Fa¨rber (1936), 35–6; Rutherford (2001), 92; Lowe (2007). See Ch. 3, sect. 5. 106 The earliest evidence of the word ØŁæÆ is Archil. 120W, a fragment that attests the connection with Dionysos and a choral performance led by an exarchos. Interest in the dithyramb has grown in recent years. Bibliographical references can be found in Fearn (2007), 163–225, which includes a thorough study of the dithyramb in relation to the kyklios choros. A forthcoming volume edited by Barbara Kowalzig and Peter Wilson collects articles by leading specialists. 107 Fa¨rber (1936), 34–5. 108 Harvey (1955), 163. 109 Ps.-Luc. de Salt. 16 (Delos); EM s.v. æåÆ Æ. 110 Ford (1988). See, however, Irwin (2005b), esp. 59–60, for the sympotic performance of some hexameters.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
209
performed on public occasions and thus played a role in the life of the community. Is it possible to make any inferences about iamboi from the order of the items in the list? The list goes from fully musical genres, dithyramboi, enkomia, hyporchemata, through epe, perhaps recited to a tune, to iamboi, which were probably performed less formally. If order means hierarchy, choral genres are mentioned Wrst and genres for solo performance last, which would imply that iamboi occupied the last and least important place. It is therefore possible that iamboi were held in low esteem by Plato, as later by Aristotle. The term iamboi appears again in Plato’s last work, the Laws (935e3–8),111 in a passage that places a restriction on poetry that makes use of ridicule. ØÅ fi B c Œøfiø Æ X Ø N ø j ıH ºfiø Æ c K ø º ªfiø NŒ Ø; ŁıfiH ¼ ı ŁıF; ÅÆH ÅÆ H ºØ H Œøfiø E: Ka Ø I ØŁfi B; f IŁºŁ Æ K æª Ø KŒ B åæÆ e ÆæÆ ÆPŁÅ æ ; j ÇÅØFŁÆØ ÆE æØd ƒ æÆE F Ł F y i Iªg fi q. (Plato, Laws 935e3–8) A composer of a comedy or of any iambic or lyric song shall be strictly forbidden to ridicule any of the citizens either by word or by mimicry, whether with or without passion; and if anyone disobeys, the Presidents of the Games shall on the same day banish him wholly from the country, failing which they shall be Wned three minas, dedicated to the god whose festival is being held.112
If Plato’s low esteem of iamboi is a possible inference from their place at the end of the Ion list, the passage from the Laws gives an explicit reason for this: ridicule of citizens as a possible feature of the genre. I shall discuss this in Chapter 11, section 1. The phrase ØÅ fi B c Œøfiø Æ X Ø N ø j ıH ºfiø Æ can be taken as a disjunction of two members, ‘of a comedy or of any iambic or lyric song’ (Bury), or as a disjunction of three members corresponding to literary genres, ‘of comedies, or of songs or iambic verse’ (Saunders).113 The choice of one or the other interpretation is ultimately based on our understanding of Plato’s style. Each option 111 Arist. Pol. 1264b24–7; DL 3.37; Olympiodorus, Prol. 6.24. Cf. Brandwood (1990), 1–2 and 250. 112 Translated by Bury (1967), 462. 113 Translated by Saunders (1970).
210
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
has implications for the history of iambos as a genre. I shall take up this passage in Chapters 8 and 9, in which I deal with the musical and public performance of iamboi. To sum up, in the passage from the Laws the word YÆ Ø does not have the rhythmical meaning we Wnd in Damon (ap. Pl. R. 400b) and Aristotle (Rh. 1408b), nor does it refer to the iambic trimeter, for which iambeion was the standard term in Plato’s time. As in our previous passage, iamboi are mentioned together with another genre, comedy, as Plato subjects the performance of iamboi to the same legal treatment as comedy. The term iamboi is therefore the collective name of a group of poetic compositions: the name of a literary genre conceived as a public performance.
3. IAMBEION It is time to turn to a term deriving from iambos, namely, iambeion.114 The semantic value of this derivation is that of ‘belonging to iambos’.115 The earliest evidence for the term appears in a poem by the Athenian politician Critias (460–403 bce), in a fragment quoted by Hephaestion, according to whom it belongs to an elegy addressed to Alcibiades116 (Enchiridion 2.3 ¼ fr. 4W): ŒÆd F ˚º Ø ı ıƒe ŁÅÆE çÆø ºŒØ ØÅ ØØ Æ æ Ø: P ªæ ø q h KçÆæ Ç Ø Kº ª øØ, F K NÆ øØ Œ ÆØ PŒ I æø. And now I shall crown the Athenian son of Cleinias, Alcibiades, with a song in a new manner. For it was not possible in any way to Wt the name into elegiac verse; now it will lie, not unmetrically, in an iambic line [iambeion].117
Critias announces that he is going to praise Alcibiades ‘in a new manner’. In lines 3 and 4 he explains the meaning of that ‘new 114 Dover (1964), 187–8. 115 Ku¨hner–Gerth II.1, 291–3. 116 K fi B N ºŒØ ØÅ Kº ª fi Æ, ‘in the elegy on Alcibiades’. 117 Translated by Gerber (1999b), 465.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
211
manner’. Since the word Alcibiades does not Wt in an elegiac verse (due to the sequence of three short syllables: l k k k l) but it does in an iambic, in line 2 an iambic trimeter has taken the place of the pentameter in order to accommodate the proper name.118 This substitution appears later in a number of Hellenistic epigrams but it is not attested before Critias.119 Thus, the practice was probably a novelty and Critias’ audience must have been surprised at the unexpected intrusion of an iambic line into the elegiacs. The term iambeion takes us back to the second line, clearly referring to some of its metrical features. It connotes a metrical unit composed in iambic rhythm, but what is the unit? Does iambeion refer to the rhythm (k l), to the metron (x l k l), given that the name Alcibiades occupies a metron in itself, or to the whole verse? One could argue that metrical technicalities are not appropriate for a sympotic poem. Yet conversely, one could infer from the fact that these terms appear in a sympotic poem, that they are not so specialized after all. The analogy with Kº ª E, ‘elegiac’, which is used elsewhere for elegiac couplets or elegiac poems120 but not for their dactylic rhythm, helps reject the possibility that iambeion refers to a rhythm only, for which the Greeks had iambos. Since tradition furnishes no support for the possibility that iambeion refers to a metron, it is clear that the term is applied to the whole line, an iambic trimeter, as in Aristophanes’ use of the term. There is no external reference for dating this text. Any hypothesis would necessarily rely on an estimate of when Critias was likely to have composed an elegy to Alcibiades. Diehl, for example, believes that Critias wrote it not before 411 bce, when Alcibiades went back to Athens.121 Bowie, on the other hand, suggests that it was composed about 430 bce, when Alcibiades was still young.122 In any case, it is earlier than the next extant testimony for iambeion, which 118 West (1982), 26–7; Koster (1962), 79–80; Korzeniewski (1968), 40. 119 Nicaenetus, AP 13.29, Parthenius, ap. Heph. p. 4.4 V. For a combination of elegiac couplet and iambic trimeter cf. CEG 280 (¼ AP 13.13) and AP 13.14. The combination of hexameter and iambic trimeter is well attested before Critias: CEG 454 (Nestor’s cup), the Margites (fr. 1W), and Xenophanes (fr. B14W); cf. Degani (1988a), 1010–12. 120 Pherecrates 162.10 Austin, Thucydides I. 132.2, Ion of Samos ML 95(c).5; cf. West (1974), 3–4; Bowie (1986), 25. 121 Diehl, RE 11 (1892), col. 1906. 122 Bowie (2001a), 5.
212
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
appears in Aristophanes’ Frogs of 405 bce (lines 1133 and 1204):123 The other metrical term mentioned by Critias, elegeion, appears in a fragment of Pherecrates’ Chiron (162.10 Austin ¼ 153 Kock, ap. Ath. 364a–b) from about 420 or 410.124 In this fragment Kº ª EÆ introduces a quotation of two hexameters from elegiac poems (Theognidea lines 467 and 469). The correlation of the testimonies in Critias, Pherecrates, and Aristophanes indicates that the metrical terms iambeion and elegeion were both in use in the last quarter of the Wfth century bce.125 Given the activity of writers on metrics and music in the Wfth century it is not unlikely that the terms were in use somewhat earlier than our Wrst testimonies. It has been proposed that Herodotus’ non-use of these terms shows that they were not available to him,126 but, as I suggest in the examination of Herodotus’ references to metre, he simply used a system of references that did not become standard in the way that iambeion and elegeion did. Unlike iambos, the word iambeion is not a generic term but one that denotes metrical features.127 In fact, the Wrst attestations of iambeion show no connection to iambos as a genre: in Critias the term refers to an iambic line within an elegiac poem, in Aristophanes it is applied to the utterances of tragic poets. Iambeion becomes the standard way of referring to or quoting from the iambic trimeters of tragedy, as attested in Plato (Euthd. 291d1; 380a5, 602b9), Lycurgus
123 Ar. Ran. 1132–3: ˜. `Nåº ; ÆæÆØH Ø ØøA: N b , æe æØd NÆ ØØ æç ºø çÆ E. Ar. Ran. 1201–4: ¯. Ie ºÅŒıŁ ı f f K; `. (e ı. E ªaæ o ø u KÆæ
Ø –Æ, ŒÆd ŒfiøæØ ŒÆd ºÅŒŁØ ŒÆd ŁıºŒØ, K E NÆ ØØ: ø ÆP ŒÆ. Some manuscripts attest NÆ ØØ; NÆ ØØ; NÆ Ø; N ØØ; N ØØ for Ran. 1133 and NÆ ØØ; N ØØ for Ran. 1204. However, for both lines the readings with YÆ are unmetrical. 124 420 bce was suggested by Bowie (2001a), 5 and 410 bce by Du¨ring (1945), 177. 125 Bowie (1986), 26, suggests that elegeion was coined by the last decade of the 5th cent. bce. 126 West (1974), 7 n. 8; contra: Bowie (1986), 25–6. 127 Bartol (1993a), 38–9.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
213
(Leoc. 92.4, 100.6), Demosthenes (Or. 19.245.1, 7; 246.3, 9), and, as we have seen in Chapter 3, Aristotle. Before the Poetics there is nothing to connect the term iambeion to a speciWc content, in the way Aristotle links it to invective (psogos, iambizein). Judging from extant pre-Aristotelian evidence, then, iambeion does not derive from iambos in its generic sense, as a poetic genre, but from iambos in its rhythmical sense, as iambic rhythm, with no connection to any type of content.
4. ARISTOXENUS OF SELINUS AND THE HYPOTHESIS OF A DORIAN IAMBOS Aristoxenus is often considered an iambic poet128 on the basis of a fragment by the Sicilian Epicharmus, who was active in the early Wfth century bce.129 The fragment, from a play entitled Logos and Logina, mentions a certain Aristoxenus as the Wrst who ‘introduced the iamboi’. What are these iamboi? Do they refer to a type of rhythm or to a literary genre? The fragment deserves attention, not least because of an evident problem in the transmission. It is cited by the grammarian and metrician Hephaestion (Enchiridion 8.2–3) in a chapter on anapaests. According to Hephaestion, the anapaestic tetrameter catalectic is also called ‘Aristophaneion’, though not because Aristophanes invented the metre, since it was used by Cratinus, Epicharmus, and Aristoxenus of Selinus.
128 West (1971), 310 n. 4; IEG 2 II, pp. 45–6; West (1974), 34–5; Degani (1988a), 1005; Brown (1997), 37. For a thorough discussion of ancient sources and contemporary criticism, see Lennartz (2000a), 233–7. That Aristoxenus was an iambic poet is taken for granted, for example, by Hummbard (1994), 178 on the basis of Jerome, Chron. OL. 29.1 (‘Archilochus et Simonides et Aristoxenus musicus inlustres habentur’) and Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum 1.14 (ŒÆd e ıØŒe æØ ), although the testimonies most probably speak of Aristoxenus of Tarentum. See my remarks on Aristoxenus in Ch. 2, sect. 2. 129 Epicharmus was born about 530 bce. He was active in Syracuse, particularly in the time of Hieron I (Handley (1985), 367; Cassio (2002), 52–3; Olson (2007), 6–7). On Aristoxenus see RE s.v. ‘Aristoxenos 5’. There is no entry for Aristoxenus of Selinus in OCD3 and DNP.
214
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
¯ ØÅ
Æ b K ÆP fiH K Ø e æ æ ŒÆ ÆºÅŒ ØŒe N ıººÆ ;
e ŒÆº æØ ç Ø ‹ Kªg a ŒÆØÆ ºªø XŁı ŒÆd øçæÅ Ø : [¼ Nub. 962] ŒŒºÅ ÆØ b æØ ç Ø PŒ æØ çı ÆP e æ æ ı; K d ŒÆd Ææa ˚æÆ fiø K åÆ æ Æ ƒ ¸ ØÆ ´Ø Ø sŁÆæ IææÅ [¼ fr. 220] Iººa Øa e e æØ çÅ ººfiH ÆP fiH Œ åæBŁÆØ: ŒÆd æe ˚æÆ ı Ææ ¯ Øåæfiø; n ŒÆd ‹ºÆ æÆ Æ fiø fiH æfiø ªªæÆç ; +æ Æ ŒÆd e ¯ ØŒ: æØ b › ºØ Ø ¯ Øåæı æ æ Kª ØÅ ðy ŒÆd ÆP e ¯ åÆæ Å Ø K ¸ ªfiø ŒÆd ¸ª fi Æ ƒ f N ı ŒÆd e y ¼æØ æ , n æA NÆªÆŁ /æØ ) [¼ fr. 77 Austin ¼ 88 Kaibel ¼ 112 Olivieri] ŒÆd ı ı F æØ ı Å Æ ØÆ fiø fiH æfiø ª ªæÆÆ:
IºÆÇ Æ130 º Æ Ææå Ø H IŁæø;
d Ø: [¼ Aristoxenus fr. 1 Austin] Worthiest of mention in it is the tetrameter catalectic into a syllable, that which is called Aristophaneion (Ar. Nub. 962) ‹ Kªg a ŒÆØÆ ºªø XŁı ŒÆd øçæÅ Ø ; its name is Aristophaneion not because Aristophanes was its Wrst inventor, since it is in Cratinus as well (*235 K–A) åÆ æ Æ ƒ ¸ ØÆ ´Ø Ø sŁÆæ IææÅ but because Aristophanes has made frequent use of it. Also, before Cratinus (it is) in Epicharmus, who has even written two plays entirely in this metron, the Choreuontes and the Epinicus. And Aristoxenus of Selinus was a poet older than Epicharmus, who himself actually recalls him in Logos and Logina (88 Ka.), 130 IºÆÇ Æ Heph. AD, Choerob.; IºÆÇ Æ Heph. I; IºÆÇ Æ Gramm. Hamb.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
215
‘they (?) . . . the iamboi and the ybest way, which Aristoxenus Wrst introduced’ now of this Aristoxenus too some things written in this metron are remembered (Ka. p. 87) ‘And which sort of men are the biggest of pseuds and the biggest of charlatans? Seers!’131
Before turning to the crux in the Epicharmus fragment, it would be best to clarify who Aristoxenus was and what kind of compositions he wrote. Unfortunately, to answer these questions we only have the information provided by Hephaestion himself. Since Aristoxenus was older than Epicharmus, he must have been active in the sixth century bce.132 Of his work only the single anapaestic tetrameter quoted by Hephaestion survives. Opinions are divided on the authenticity of the line, which is regarded as spurious by Kaibel (Epich. fr. 88 CGF), but not so by Austin (Aristoxenus fr. 1 PCG I). Aristoxenus is usually considered an author of Dorian farces similar to those composed by Epicharmus, the so-called Dorian comedy.133 However, he is also considered an iambic poet by virtue of Epicharmus’ reference. West includes Aristoxenus in his edition of iambic and elegiac poets134 and suggests in his Studies that in fr. 77 Epicharmus was ‘contrasting his own kind of show with a diVerent kind that was in fashion before. It may be that the anapaestic Dancers and Epinikios were examples of the old kind, and that they were called iambi.’135 Furthermore, West suggests elsewhere that ‘for Epicharmus iamboi is a genre that may include anapaests’.136 Similarly Degani proposes that the anapaestic line ‘proviene proprio da quegli YÆ Ø ‘‘di vecchio stampo’’ (?) che lo stesso Aristosseno—stando ad Epicarmo (fr. 88 Kaib.)—fu il primo ad inaugurare’.137 This line of interpretation may be summed up in 131 Translated by Ophuijsen (1987), 83. The translation of Epicharmus’ lines is mine, Aristoxenus’ line is translated by West (1993), 85. 132 The chronology of other later references to Aristoxenus is unreliable (cf. Aristoxenus T 2 Austin ¼ Euseb. Ol. 29.1, year 664/3, p. 94b 15 Helm; Sync. p. 252, 22 Mossh.; Cyrill. Alex. c. Iul. 12). 133 PCG I, p. 6, but see Olson (2007), 12 n. 29. 134 IEG2 II, pp. 45–6. 135 West (1974), 34–5. 136 West (1971), 310 n. 4. 137 Degani (1988a), 1005.
216
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Brown’s words: ‘In Southern Italy Aristoxenus of Selinus is credited with the introduction of a genre called YÆ ’.138 Needless to say, the notion that Aristoxenus was a practitioner of a Dorian iambos is related to more general hypotheses on Greek iambos, thus West’s hypothesis of a Dorian choral variant of what was a solo performance in Ionic-speaking areas,139 and Degani’s argument that the term iamboi could occasionally designate compositions in metres such as anapaests and dactyls (I shall go back to the hypothesis of the application of term YÆ for Euenus’ dactylic compositions in Chapter 11, sect. 4). In my view, that Aristoxenus was an iambic poet is not at all clear from the Hephaestion passage. First of all, Hephaestion does not use the term iambos in connection with Aristoxenus’ line. On the contrary, since Hephaestion mentions Aristoxenus in a list of poets including Aristophanes, Cratinus, and Epicharmus, it seems that he took all of them, including Aristoxenus, as poets who used the same metre and perhaps even composed a similar kind of poetry. Hephaestion, as Kaibel suggests, is probably drawing information from Apollodoros’ commentary on Epicharmus, where Aristoxenus might have been mentioned as a predecessor in the same genre. The content and language of the anapaestic line do not help decide whether it comes from comedy or iambos. From the point of view of content, and since criticism of types (in this case, seers) appears in both comedy and iamboi, the line may have an equal claim to come from either genre. From the point of view of language, the line presents a number of features that are not Ionic (e.g. º Æ; IºÆÇ Æ) and for which we have no other instances in the archaic iambos.140 Furthermore, we have absolutely no hint of a Dorian iambos in the literary tradition except for Epicharmus’ reference. Let us now examine Epicharmus fr. 77 with the two possible meanings of the term YÆ Ø in mind: a type of rhythm and a type of composition.
138 Brown (1997), 37. 139 West (1974), 36 suggests that the term iambos could have been used in Ionia to refer to an ‘(actor-) reciter’s piece, whereas in mainland Greece it could have been used for that of a chorus addressing the audience’. 140 See Cassio (2002) for an outline of linguistic features of Doric comedy.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
217
ƒ141 f N ı ŒÆd e y ¼æØ æ ; n æA NÆªÆŁ /æØ . (fr. 77 Austin) they (?) . . . the iamboi and the ybest way, which Aristoxenus Wrst introduced.
Unlike Austin, Consbruch, Hephaestion’s editor, gives the quotation in brackets, suggesting a digression or even a marginal note. However, given that Hephaestion’s treatise has came down to us abridged,142 the digressive impression may be a result of the abridgement. At any rate, references to this part of the text in ancient commentaries to Hephaestion indicate that commentators found it in the editions that they used.143 As the crux indicates, there is a textual problem in the Wrst line of the fragment. Indeed, the Wrst iambic trimeter of fr. 77 is not metrical, the Æ of ¼æØ in ŒÆd e ¼æØ æ (l k k l l k l ) being short. It is diYcult to believe that an unmetrical iambic trimeter would be introduced into a book on metrics; corruption must have occurred. The name /æØ in the second line was probably the cause of the intrusion of ¼æØ in the Wrst one.144 Various conjectures have been put forward to emend the Wrst line. The paradosis reads ‘they (?) the iamboi and the best manner, which Aristoxenus Wrst introduced’. We should probably read Œa instead of ŒÆd, a common scribal mistake, thus ‘the iamboi in the (ŒÆ
e) best manner, which Aristoxenus Wrst introduced’. Since the word æ can be used for style, including musical style,145 it is possible that Aristoxenus is credited with an 141 The subject of the quotation is given in the plural but the verb is missing. Ahrens (1843), 446 found the ƒ dubious, and suggested þ or N. 142 Choerob. in Heph. p. 181.11–16; Ophuijsen (1987), 6. 143 Schol. A (p. 133.22 Consbruch) notes that Hephaestion quotes Epicharmus’ lines not because of the metre (which is not anapaestic but iambic) but because Epicharmus mentions Aristoxenus. Schol. B (p. 276.2) and Choeroboscus (p. 234.7, similarly Trichas, p. 384.6) rearrange Hephaestion’s reversed chronological order: Aristoxenus, Epicharmus, Cratinus. 144 West, IEG2 II, 45. Unless there is an intentional word-play, cf. Conti Bizzarro (1999), 29. 145 e.g. Eupol. 303.1–2: ¼ª c
æÆ º Ł c F ØŁ Ø fiTB IŒ Ø; j e IæåÆE æ ; Cf. LSJ s.v. æ IV.
218
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
innovation in the manner of performance of iamboi that is related, for example, to music. Herodotus provides an illuminating parallel for the use of NŪÆØ. In 2.49 he credits Melampus with the introduction of many rites in Greece, among them the Dionysiac ( . . . ºÆ. . .ıŁ I `Nª ı ¼ººÆ ººa KÅªÆŁÆØ ¯ººÅØ ŒÆd a æd e ˜Ø ı Oº ªÆ ÆP H ÆæƺºÆ Æ). Here Herodotus speaks about the adoption, with some degree of adaptation, of pre-existing Egyptian rites into another culture. Similarly, it is possible that in Epicharmus’ fragment there is no claim of invention, but only of the introduction of something that already existed elsewhere. These iamboi—a rhythm, a composition, or a performance, or perhaps something about their style—would have been introduced by Aristoxenus into Sicily from Ionic-speaking areas. For the unmetrical ŒÆd e ¼æØ æ several emendations have been proposed. Porson’s ŒÆ
e IæåÆE æ (‘in the old manner’ or ‘style’, cf. Eupol. 303.2) is the conjecture favoured by most scholars (e.g. Olivieri, West, Degani).146 It is certainly attractive in its implications for the history of genres, allowing for a contrast between an old Aristoxenian manner and later practice.147 Ahrens’s þ (or Y) f N ı ŒÆ
e IåæØ æ (‘ah, the iamboi in that ungracious manner that Aristoxenus Wrst introduced!’) is usually overlooked, probably due to the implied criticism of the Aristoxenian style, which does not allow us to construct a continuity between Aristoxenus and Epicharmus. Although it does not clarify the meaning of YÆ Ø, the emendation puts Epicharmus in tune with the agonistic spirit of many meta-poetical references by Greek poets. Vaillant’s ŒÆd e IÆØ e æ 148 is consistent with the only Aristoxenian line that has come down to us, which is written in anapaests, and indeed with the context of Hephaestion’s discussion. ‘The iamboi and the anapaestic manner’ implies a rhythmical meaning for iamboi. If Epicharmus is referring here to metrical features of Aristoxenus’ dramatic compositions (iambic and anapaestic rhythms), his fr. 77 would witness the use of iamboi for a type of rhythm in the sixth century bce. It would be further possible to read 146 Contra Ahrens (1843), 446; Kaibel (CGF I). 147 Cf. Aristoph. Ec. 216: ŒÆ a e IæåÆE . See West (1974), 34. 148 Vaillant’s suggestion (RPh. 50 (1927), 327, which I have not seen; see IEG2 II, p. 45) is favoured by Webster, cf. DTC2 p. 272 n. 5. It has the advantage of keeping the transmitted ŒÆ between f N ı and e æ (Lennartz (2000a), 236 n. 34).
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
219
ή
e IÆØ e æ , ‘the iamboi in the anapaestic manner’, which would support the hypothesis of the genre of iamboi being written in anapaests, a hypothesis suggested by both West and Degani. However, we have no other evidence for anapaestic iamboi. Furthermore, is it possible that the word IÆØ was lost precisely in a passage treating anapaests? Finally, one might conjecture, as my second anonymous reader suggested to me, ŒÆ
e –Ø æ , ‘the iamboi in the most pleasant manner’. Like IæåÆE and IåæØ ; –Ø provides qualiWcation rather than something substantive. I shall put forward a radically diVerent conjecture, one that links Aristoxenus with Ionian iambos through a speciWc poetic Wgure. Indeed, given that fr. 77 deals with a poetic issue and mentions an earlier poet, Aristoxenus, could not Aristoxenus’ manner be linked to yet another earlier poet? There is an Ionian poet whom Epicharmus cites: Ananius. In The Marriage of Hebe (ap. Ath. 282a–b) Epicharmus adapts a line of his: ÆæØ b åæ Ø ¼æØ ; IŁ Å b å ØHØ (Anan. fr. 5.1W) the chromios is best in spring, but the anthias (is best) in winter149
into: ŒÆd ŒØç Æ åæ Ø Ł ; n K HØ qæØ Œa e Æ NåŁø ø ¼æØ ; IŁ Æ b å Æ Ø. (fr. 51 Austin ¼ 58 Kaibel) and a swordWsh and a chromis, which according to Ananius is the best Wsh there is in the spring, whereas the anthias is best in winter.150
This fragment is transmitted by Athenaeus (282ab), who subsequently quotes nine lines by Ananius (fr. 5W), coming from the poem alluded to by Epicharmus. Epicharmus fr. 51 is the earliest extant reference to the iambographer Ananius, who is otherwise known to us only from late sources.151 Furthermore, Ananius is the 149 Translated by Olson (2007), 46. 150 Translated by Olson (2007), 419, with commentary on the fragment in p. 46. 151 Elsewhere Epicharmus uses an oath (Æd a a Œæ Æ, fr. 25) found in Ananius (fr. 4W). The oath is found in the comic poets Telecleides and Eupolis as well, and it was believed to be Ionian (cf. Ath. 370b).
220
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
only iambic poet for whose connection to Epicharmus we have evidence. This reference shows that Epicharmus was familiar with Ionian iambos, and thus suggests a possible emendation for fr. 77: ƒ f N ı Œa e Æ ı æ ,152 n æA NÆªÆŁ /æØ . . . . the iamboi in the manner of Ananius, which Aristoxenus Wrst introduced.
How would this emendation aVect our interpretation of the fragment? What could be the ‘manner of Ananius’? Ananius was known in antiquity for his fondness for ischiorrhogic (‘broken-hipped’) iambic trimeters, i.e. lines with Wve long syllables at the end (see Chapter 2, sect. 2).153 His poetry, characterized by mythological parody and its distance from obscenity and invective, has multiple contacts with Epicharmus.154 The iamboi in the manner of Ananius could relate to rhythm, content, or style, that is, either as a reference to ischiorrhogic iambic trimeters or to compositions characterized by a distance from aischrologia and psogos. This emendation would imply that Epicharmus is establishing some sort of poetical genealogy: those iamboi that were typical of Ananius would have been adopted by Aristoxenus and introduced on the Sicilian stage. The emendation would enhance Ananius’ role in the iambographic tradition, while providing an illuminating link between Ionian iambos and Dorian comedy. That an Ionian iambographer could have been recognized by a Syracusan audience is not out of the question. Non-Homeric Ionian literature had a strong inXuence on Epicharmus and, as Cassio points out, both the metres used by Epicharmus and the philosophical discussions that played a role in his work are rooted in the Ionian world.155 Going back to the original question that opened this section, the meaning of the term iamboi in Epicharmus fr. 77 remains obscure. 152 Hephaestion mentions Ananius in a section on the iambic metre, p. 17. The corruption of Œa e Æ ı æ (with four short syllables: l k k k k l k l ) into ŒÆd e ¼æØ æ (l k k l l k l : unmetrical but giving the ‘right’ number of syllables) would have been caused by the introduction of ¼æØ from the following line, on which a change of case followed (ı to ). 153 Cf. fr. 2W and 3.2–3W; Tractatus Harleianus, p. 16; Tzetzes, On Metres, Anecd. Ox. iii.309 Cramer. 154 Degani (1988a), 1020–1. 155 Cassio (2002), 56.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
221
Let us sum up the possible interpretations. Either as a type of poetry, or with reference to rhythm, style, or manner of performance, Aristoxenus’ iamboi are something that he may have introduced in Sicily probably from Ionic-speaking areas. The emendation that I tentatively suggest would make this link explicit through the iambographer Ananius, but the conjecture necessarily remains hypothetical. As for the question whether the iamboi mentioned in Epicharmus fr. 77 refer to a poetic genre, I agree with Kaibel and Lennartz that one simply cannot tell.156 Furthermore, there is no explicit link between the only extant line by Aristoxenus, which is written in anapaests, and the iamboi mentioned by Epicharmus in fr. 77. On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that the verse was from comedy rather than from iamboi. Nor can we Wnd additional information to support the hypothesis that Aristoxenus was an iambographer. The assumption that he wrote plays similar to those of Epicharmus remains to my view the more probable one, unless support can be found for the hypothesis of Dorian iambos. A further, if hypothetical, implication of this fragment is that Epicharmus was referring—either in criticism or in praise—to the work of other poets who wrote in the same genre as he did (cf. ƒ), just as Aristophanes does in the parabasis of Equites.157 If this was the case the fragment would suggest that a controversy about who was the Wrst poet to introduce iamboi (as a genre or as a rhythm) could already have taken place in the early Wfth century bce, and that along with a Dorian claim to have originated comedy (Arist. Po. 1448a) there may also have been a claim about the introduction of iamboi (in a rhythmical sense) into comedy or of iamboi (as a genre) into Sicily.
5. A H ISTO RY OF TERMS Although the examination of evidence for the terms iambos and iambeion in the Wfth and fourth centuries bce cannot result in a complete picture that forms a bridge between Archilochus and Aristotle,
156 Kaibel, RE s.v. ‘Aristoxenos 5’; Lennartz (2000a), 237. 157 Olivieri (1946), 67.
222
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
it does allow us to make some suggestions as to the manner in which the genre of iamboi was conceptualized. The meaning of ‘iambic rhythm’ is perhaps the clearest, more stable one that emerges in pre-Hellenistic sources. The term iambos is used in this technical sense by Damon of Oa, and after Damon, by Plato and Aristotle, and there is a real possibility that the term was used in the same way before Damon, in the sixth century bce.158 If iambos was also used as a technical term for a ratio, this ratio was shared by both trochaic and iambic rhythms. The technical use may underlie the identiWcation of poems in trochaic tetrameters as well as in iambic trimeters as iamboi, as we Wnd in Aristotle’s Rhetoric with reference to Archil. 19W and 122W. Examination of Herodotus’ references to poetry and to poets provides reason to believe that the transmitted text of 1.12 should not be objected to on grounds of style or narrative Xow. We have seen that K N fiø æØ æfiø is not at all pleonastic, but necessary in order to avoid ambiguity. Although the possibility that in Herodotus iambos refers to rhythm cannot be ruled out, the generic intention appears more probable. In either case it seems very likely that Herodotus is referring to Archilochus fr. 19W. Therefore, iambos as a generic term is applied in this particular instance to a poem written in iambic trimeters, with a persona loquens, a poem that in Aristotle’s view involved psogos, not necessarily through direct vituperation but possibly by disclosure of the speaker or by an unexpected twist. In Aristophanes, as in Aristotle (Rhetoric), the term iambos is applied to a poem that is explicitly cited. The poems in question (Ananius 1W, Archil. 19W and 122W) are written in iambic trimeters and trochaic tetrameters. This can be accounted for by the fact that these share a similar ratio between quantities. The poems display characteristics such as the use of a persona loquens, a reXective beginning with a subsequent twist that, according to Aristotle, results in psogos, and in the case of Hipponax, parody of a prayer for comic purposes.
158 This possibility would Wnd support in the etymology suggested by Brandenstein (1936). As we have seen in Ch. 4, sect. 2, through a comparison of YÆ with Łæ Æ and ØŁæÆ he proposed that they are names of dance steps, YÆ meaning ‘two step’.
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
223
The use of the term iambos in the singular by Herodotus and Aristophanes in referring to single poems, implies a concept of a group or a category to which the poem belongs. In Plato’s Ion and Laws the plural, iamboi, is used for a group of poems, that is to say, a literary genre. It seems therefore safe to locate the earliest, indisputable testimonies for the term iambos used for a literary genre between Herodotus and Aristophanes. It remains possible that the term was used in this sense in the archaic period, but this cannot be proved. In fact, for Archil. 215W it is a petitio principii that iamboi refer to poetry, based on later uses of the term. Finally, the term iambeion emerges in our sources about 430/420 bce. I suggest that it derives from iambos in the sense of ‘iambic rhythm’ rather than from iambos in the sense of ‘iambic poem or genre’. The latter is the explanation oVered by Aristotle: ‘because in that metre they used to abuse (iambizein) each other’, but this explanation is the result of Aristotle’s speculation about the ritual origins of both metre and genre. A derivation of iambeion from iambos as a rhythm can account for the use of the term iambeion in the fourth century bce, as well as for the use of the iambic trimeter itself in diVerent kinds of dramatic performances. As for the possibility that the term iambos could have been applied to compositions in anapaests, that Aristoxenus of Selinus was an iambographer, and that Epicharmus fr. 77 refers to a Dorian iambos, I have found insuYcient evidence to draw a deWnite conclusion. The question whether the term iambos in Epicharmus fr. 77 refers to verses in a particular metre or to a genre of poetry cannot be answered, but there is certainly no necessary connection between the anapaestic line attributed to Aristoxenus and the genre of iamboi. In sum, Epicharmus fr. 77, as transmitted by Hephaestion, provides insuYcient evidence to settle the issue of a Dorian iambos or to prove that Aristoxenus of Selinus was an iambographer. Table 4 summarizes the evidence examined thus far. Testimonies in the table are arranged chronologically and attestation of terms is marked with ‘X’. Certainty is marked with ‘ þ ’, a distinct possibility for which doubts remain is marked with ‘ þ ?’, and a weak possibility that nevertheless cannot be completely ruled out, with ‘?’.
224
Iambos and Iambeion: Terms in Context
Table 4. Testimonies on iambos and cognate terms (7th to 4th cent. bce) Testimonies on:
YÆ =YÆ Ø
YÆ Ø Å YÆ YÆ Ø NÆ E YÆ YÆ YÆ Ø ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ rhythm poem group of performance poems Archil. 215 Hymn. Dem. Epicharmus 77 Hdt. 1.12 Damon ap. Pl. Critias Aristophanes Orators Plato Aristotle
X
?
X
? ? þ
þ?
?
?
?
þ þ
þ þ
X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X
þ? þ
þ þ
þ
To sum up: the term iambos is used as a generic term probably by Archilochus and Herodotus, certainly by Aristophanes, Plato, and Aristotle. Concurrently with use to designate a poetic genre, the term iambos refers to iambic rhythm, perhaps, the iambic genos (the 1:2 ratio) in Damon and Plato, and possibly to a melodic pattern, designating also a section of Pythian Nomos. Sometime before the last quarter of the Wfth century bce the term iambeion was coined from this rhythmical/musical use and applied to the iambic trimeter. In some testimonies, namely Archilochus fr. 215W, Epicharmus fr 77, and to some extent Herodotus 1.12, the term iambos could refer to rhythm, have strong rhythmical connotations, or be compatible with the meaning of iambic rhythm. Consequently, it is possible that in the seventh and sixth centuries bce the term iambos had a rhythmical meaning159 along with the generic one. It therefore seems reasonable that the generic meaning developed from the rhythmical sense of the term.160 If the rhythmical sense preceded the generic one, the shift of meaning from rhythm to genre must have occurred before the last third of the Wfth century bce, when the term iambeion became 159 Bartol (1993a), 32–4. 160 Cf. the term IÆØ , anapaest, a metrical term that is applied to a structural section of the parabasis (Ar. Ach. 627, Eq. 503, Pax 735 and Av. 684) (Ra‘anana Meridor, personal communication).
Iambos and Iambeion in the Classical Period
225
available for naming the iambic trimeters (about 430–405 bce). Musical theory would have remained conservative, thus keeping the older rhythmical meaning of iambos. As we shall see in Chapter 11, the generic term emerges with clear contentual connotations (such as invective, etc.) only in fourth-century bce sources. I cannot overstate the speculative character of this reconstruction nor try to carry it any further, except to note one implication. If from Archilochus onwards the term iambos also had rhythmical connotations and if the coinage of iambeion for iambic verses is linked to the emergence or consolidation of iambos as the collective name of a group of poems, then rhythm may have been one of the features by which the poems composed by the archaic iambic poets were known as iamboi. In sum, it is possible that in early times (7th to 5th century) rhythm was perceived as a dominant feature of iamboi as a literary genre.
This page intentionally left blank
Part IV The Performance of Iambos
This page intentionally left blank
8 Musical Performance of Iamboi In ancient literary criticism the manner of presentation of a poem, that is to say, delivered sung or recited, with musical accompaniment or without it, was essential for distinguishing epos, iambos, and elegy from melic poetry (what is usually called ‘lyric poetry’). In ancient classiWcations iambos was a non-melic genre, i.e. a genre that was not sung.1 On this point, however, ancient testimonies on iambos are less deWnite than ancient criticism. What is more, within the ‘received iambos’, epodic combinations and stichic trochaic tetrameters have a possible claim to sung performance.2 Given their metrical patterns, as Dale has argued, epodes and tetrameters are similar to strophes, which could indicate that they were sung.3 Such quasi-strophes may well at some point have a claim to musical accompaniment. Bartol examined this possibility, suggesting that ‘several types of iambic presentation coexisted, i.e. melic, semi-melic (ÆæÆŒÆ Æºª) and non-melic’.4 The relative silence in our sources suggests that most poems termed iamboi in the archaic and classical periods were recited rather than sung. Still, there is evidence to suggest that some iamboi were occasionally sung and even performed with musical accompaniment. Later taxonomies reXect the most common mode of performance, one that allows for deWnition through generalization. That iambos was predominantly a non-melic genre is good enough
1 Testimonies in Fa¨rber (1936), 23–2; cf. PfeiVer (1968), 182; Bartol (1992b), 269; (1993a), 61. 2 Dale (1963); Nagy (1990), 46; Bartol (1993a), 64. 3 Bartol (1993a). 4 Bartol (1993a), ‘Appendix’, 70. See also Bartol (1993a), 61–5 on the manner of performance of iamboi.
230
The Performance of Iambos
for categorization. However, for a historical view of the genre, the location of iambos in a taxonomy according to mode of performance does not allow us to infer the whole spectrum of modes of performance but only of what was later considered suYciently representative, i.e. non-melic. In order to go beyond the dominant mode of performance in this chapter I shall examine the ancient evidence for a connection of iambos and music.
1. A RC H I LO C H US AS A MU S I C A L I N N OVATOR Archilochus’ ancient reputation as a musician is a useful starting point for approaching the possibility that iamboi were at times sung. At any rate, Glaucus of Rhegium credits Archilochus with a signiWcant role in the development of Greek music. Glaucus, active at the end of the Wfth century bce, wrote a book titled ‘On the Ancient Poets and Musicians’ ( æd H IæåÆ ø ØÅ H ŒÆd ıØŒH). It is probable that he dealt there with Archilochus, together with other famous poets and musicians, some of them mythical.5 Glaucus is a source often cited by the author of the treatise On Music, wrongly attributed to Plutarch ([Plu.], de Mus. 1132e, 1133 f, 1134d, f). In a section on musical nomoi Ps.-Plutarch says that according to Glaucus, Thaletas of Crete (7th cent. bce) imitated Archilochus’ melodies ( a æåغ åı ºÅ): ˆºÆFŒ ªaæ æå ºå çŒø ª ª BŁÆØ ¨Æº Æ, ØBŁÆØ b ÆP çÅØ a æåغ åı ºÅ, Kd b e ÆŒæ
æ KŒ EÆØ, ŒÆd Æ øÆ ŒÆd ŒæÅ ØŒe ÞıŁe N c ºØ Æ KŁ EÆØ, x æå ºå c Œ åæBŁÆØ, Iºº P ˇæçÆ Pb $æÆæ. ([Plu.], de Mus. 1134d) Thus Glaucus, who asserts that Thaletas is later than Archilochus, says that he imitated Archilochus’ music, but expanded it to greater length, and also used in his music the paeonic and cretic rhythms, which Archilochus had not employed, nor had Orpheus either or Terpander.6
5 Lasserre (1954), 155; cf. DL 9.7.38. 6 Translated by Einarson and De Lacy (1967), 373–4.
Musical Performance of Iamboi
231
Later on (1140f–1141b),7 Ps.-Plutarch lists other inventions attributed to Archilochus, among them the parakataloge (ÆæÆŒÆ Æºª) or recitative.8 In addition, the two modes of performance of iambic trimeters, singing and parakataloge, later used in drama, were also considered Archilochus’ contribution. Ps.Plutarch is here following one or more earlier authors. This is clear from ƒ ƒ æÆ . . . æ Ł Æ, ºª ÆØ, reporting information about Terpander; K ø, for the attribution of the elegeion to Archilochus, and the marks of reported speech on Archilochus: çÆØ, Y ÆØ. It is possible, as Bartol suggests, that Glaucus was Ps.-Plutarch’s ultimate source for all these innovations.9 Although too little remains of Glaucus’ writings to be certain about his reliability as a source of information on archaic musical practices,10 his testimony nevertheless indicates that at the end of the Wfth century bce the likelihood that some of Archilochus’ poems were set 7 ººa c ŒÆd æå ºå c H æØ æø ÞıŁØ Æ æ Fæ ŒÆd c N
f På ›ª E ÞıŁf ÆØ ŒÆd c ÆæÆŒÆ Æºªc ŒÆd c æd ÆF Æ ŒæFØ. —æ fiø ÆP fiH Kfiøa ŒÆd a æ æÆ ŒÆd e ŒæÅ ØŒe ŒÆd e æØÆŒe I ÆØ, ŒÆd F æfiı ÆhÅØ, K ø b ŒÆd e Kº ª E æe b Ø l F NÆ ı æe e KØ Æ e Æ øÆ ÆØ ŒÆd F ÅPÅı æfiı Y e æØÆŒe ŒÆd e ŒæÅ ØŒ : ‚ Ø b H NÆ ø e a b ºª ŁÆØ Ææa c ŒæFØ a fi ¼ ŁÆØ æå ºå çÆØ ŒÆ Æ EÆØ, rŁ o ø åæÆŁÆØ f
æƪ،f ØÅ : ˚æ b ºÆ Æ N ØŁæÆ IªÆª E: ˇY ÆØ b ŒÆd c ŒæFØ c e c fiTc F æH æ E, f IæåÆ ı Æ æ åæÆ Œæ Ø. (Text: Lasserre (1954).) ‘Further, Archilochus invented a new rhythmical system, that of the trimeter, the combination of rhythms of diVerent genera, and the declamation with its instrumental accompaniment; and he is the Wrst to be credited with epodes, tetrameters, the cretic, the prosodiac, and the augmented dactylic hexameter (some add the elegiac couplet), and again with the combination of iambic verse with the paeon epibatos and that of the augmented dactylic hexameter with the prosodiac and the cretic. Further, they say that Archilochus introduced for iambics the mixed recitation of some and singing of others, both to an accompaniment, and that the tragic poets followed him in this, while Crexus took it over and applied it to the dithyramb. And it is thought that he Wrst invented the accompaniment under the melody, whereas his predecessors had all let the accompaniment follow the melody.’ (Translated by Einarson and De Lacy (1967), 415–16. Einarson and De Lacy have ‘the accompaniment that is of higher pitch than the song’; ‘under the melody’ is Barker’s translation (1984a), 235.) 8 On the parakataloge, see Herington (1985), 38–9; Gentili (1988a), 35; Nagy (1990), 20, 27–8, 46–9; Bartol (1992a). 9 Bartol (1992b), 271. 10 Bartol (1992b) is more conWdent than West (1974), 33 on the reliability of Ps.-Plutarch’s information when it is based on Glaucus of Rhegium.
232
The Performance of Iambos
to musical accompaniment was perceived as plausible. Moreover, it seems that in ancient musical theory the two modes of performance of iambic trimeters, namely recitative and singing, were deemed an old practice. If, as Bartol believes, it was Glaucus who credited Archilochus with those musical inventions involving iamboi (de Mus. 1140f–1141b), it is perhaps possible that in the classical period, if not earlier, some poems denominated iamboi were occasionally performed with musical accompaniment. The case might be even stronger for epodes and tetrameters, given their metrical patterns.11 Archilochus’ reputation as a musician may explain why ancient authors sometimes link him to a lyre and even call him lyrikos. However, the view of an ‘Archilochus lyricus’ and the iconography of the poet go far beyond an acknowledgement of Archilochus’ historical contribution to Greek music. Granted, Archilochus was regarded not only as an ancient poet, but also as one who had laid the foundations of Greek music. Furthermore, the speaker of Archil. 119W presents himself as the Kæåø, ‘leader’ of a speciWc song (º), the dithyramb.12 If the Wrst person of the fragment refers
11 See above. An example for the musical accompaniment of tetrameters in recitation can be found in a passage of Xenophon (Symp. 6.3): ŒÆd › øŒæ Å, - / ˚ƺº Æ, åØ ¼ Ø, çÅ, Iæd Kº ªåfiø ÅŁBÆØ; ‚ªøª , çÅ: ‹ Æ ªaæ › ÆPºe çŁªªÅ ÆØ, Æ ÆØ ØøH : ŒÆd › ¯æªÅ, - ˙ s º Ł , çÅ, u æ ˝ØŒ æÆ › ŒæØ c æ æÆ æe e ÆPºe ŒÆ º ª , o ø ŒÆd e F ÆPºF E ØƺªøÆØ; The comparison refers to the way Nicostratos used to recite tetrameters to aulos accompaniment. The genre to which these tetrameters belong is not speciWed, nor is the rhythm. Are they iambic tetrameters or trochaic tetrameters? Bartol (1993a), 63 takes the tetrameters as iamboi and Nicostratos as a comic actor: ‘Nicostratos (a comic actor) recited iambi with a musical accompaniment’. However, given that Nicostratos is called ŒæØ , and thus was probably the famous tragic actor who won three prizes in the Lenaea competitions around 425 bce (Huss (1999), 336), it seems likely that the verses were dramatic. Thus this testimony probably refers to the recitation (parakataloge) of tetrameters in dramatic performances, or to the sympotic re-performance of tetrameters of tragedy (cf. Ar. Nub. 1371) and does not support the possibility of melic performance of iamboi. 12 Archil. 119W: ‰ ˜Øøı ¼ÆŒ ŒÆºe KæÆØ º rÆ ØŁæÆ YøØ ıªŒ æÆıøŁ d çæÆ.
Cf. Archil. 120W: ÆP e Kæåø æe ÆPºe ¸ Ø ÆØÆ.
Musical Performance of Iamboi
233
to Archilochus himself, this could indicate his involvement with musical performance, although, as far as we can tell, not of an iambos. The reputation of Archilochus as a musician may account, for example, for the fact that in Mnesiepes’ inscription (SEG XV.517, ll. 34–41, 3rd cent. bce, see Chapter 10, sect. 3) the poet is said to have received a lyre from the Muses. Archilochus is further associated with the lyre by Theocritus or Leonidas at AP 7.664, and by the scholiast to Pind. Ol. 9.1. These references to Archilochus as a lyre player are indicative of the post-classical perception of Archilochus as a performer of sung poetry. However, the lyre in itself is too common an attribute for the iconographical identiWcation of Archilochus. Nonetheless, Kontoleon identiWed a Wgure in a Parian tomb relief from around 500 bce as Archilochus, on the basis of two attributes: the Wgure lying on a kline has a shield on the left and an object that Kontoleon identiWes as a lyre on the right: ‘la lyre que l’on voit accompagnant le de´funt montre que celui-ci n’est autre qu’Archiloque le Parien’.13 However, the identiWcation of the lyre as such is uncertain, and even if the object is a lyre, its presence in a banquet scene could be a commonplace.14 Yet Kontoleon’s recognition of the Wgure as Archilochus is usually taken for granted.15 Even more tenuous is Schefold’s identiWcation of a Louvre sculpture (Paris, Louvre Ma 588, Roman copy, around 150 ce) of a standing man with a chelys lyre as ‘Archilochus (?)’.16 Thus, even though there may 13 Kontoleon (1970), 35. See Clay (2004), 40–50 (with plates 13, 15, 16, and 19) for an examination of the Paros relief against the background of the Totenmahl genre. Although Clay (2004), 54 is hesitant about Kontoleon’s hypothesis of a lyre, he Wnds no more convincing alternative. 14 Berranger (1992), 244 and 249; similarly Dentzer (1982), 259–60. 15 e.g. Gentili (1988a), 179–80; Gasparri (1982). 16 Schefold (1997), Ab. 29, pp. 94–5. Clay (2004), 61 (with plate 30) does not determine whether the poet is Alcaeus or Archilochus, but Wnds a connection through the chelys lyre with the Boston pyxis and a Parian coin. See Clay (2004) 58–60 (with plate 25) for an identiWcation of the ‘Seated Poet’ or ‘Old Singer’ from Copenhagen as Archilochus (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek inv. no. 1563), although the same has also been identiWed as Alcaeus or Archilochus (Zanker (1995), 147; Ridgway (1998), 730). The Panhellenic circulation of Hesiod’s works suggests that the poet encountering the Muses depicted on the Boston pyxis (Schefold (1997) Ab. 40–1, p. 111; Clay (2004), 55–7, with plates 20–2) should be identiWed as Hesiod. Parian propaganda possibly exploited Archilochus’ image, as indicated by a 1st-cent. bce silver coin from Paros showing a seated man holding a lyre and a roll (Schefold
234
The Performance of Iambos
be a case for an ‘Archilochus lyricus’ in the sense that he may have performed some of his poems musically, the iconography of Archilochus is based on a rather misguided notion of him as a lyric poet, if only because he falls into a category that is neither epic nor dramatic. A question that remains open is how poets could be signalled as iambic by visual means, such as stance or any iconographic attribute (for example, ugliness, for Hipponax).17
2 . IAMBIS, PAR I A MBI S , A N D I A M B Y K E A connection between iambos and music can be postulated on the basis of a few words containing the NÆ - element, which ancient testimonies link to music, namely iambis, pariambis, and iambyke (NÆ , ÆæØÆ , NÆ ŒÅ). According to Hesychius, Aeschylus used the word iambis (NÆ ) in the Theoroi or Isthmiastai (fr. 81 Radt), probably a satyr play:18 NÆ `Nåº ¨ øæE j ŁØÆ ÆE: E ŒØŁÆæ ÇıØ › ÆPºe ıfi Ø ŒÆd ƃ ØÆF ÆØ ŒØŁÆæ Ø Kºª ÆæØÆ . (Hsch. Ø 46) iambis: Aeschylus, in Theoroi or Isthmiastai. The aulos used to accompany people playing the kithara, and those kithara-tunes were called pariambides (ÆæØÆ ).
Thus, Hesychius gives pariambis as a synonym of iambis. When it comes to explaining the word pariambis (ÆæØÆ ) itself, quoting Apollodorus of Athens Hesychius links it to iamboi: ÆæØÆ ºº øæ Ææa f N ı ÆP 19 çÅØ ØBŁÆØ, L ƒ ŒØŁÆæfiød fi ¼ıØ. (Hsch. 927)
(1997), Ab. 277, p. 404; Clay (2004), 60–2, with plate 31; the Wgure is not identiWed on the coin). Only the Boscoreale cup of the 1st cent. ce displays the name ‘Archilochus’ (Schefold (1997), Ab. 179, 300–3; Clay (2004), 61–2 with plate 32). The skeleton holding a lyre is identiWed on the cup as ‘Archilochus of Myrrhine’, probably a place in Paros (Schefold (1997), 300; Clay (2004), 62). For a possible reinforcement of the notion of an ‘Archilochus lyricus’ see Ch. 10, n. 30. 17 Cf. Zanker (1995), 154–5, Wg. 82. 18 BlomWeld (1826), 79. 19 i.e. the ÆæØÆ , henceforth the plural ÆP .
Musical Performance of Iamboi
235
Pariambides: Apollodorus says that they derive from iamboi; kithara-singers used to sing them.20
This deWnition operates in two Welds: the Wrst part explains the formation of the word pariambis while the second oVers a detail about musical performance. Thus, Hesychius reports an argument by Apollodorus that is both etymological and antiquarian. Accordingly, the word pariambides derives from the word iambos, and pariambides themselves were sung by kithara-singers (according to Hsch. Ø 42 they were played by kithara and aulos together).21 One might reject all this lexicographical material as mere speculation based on etymology. However, the fact that Hesychius quotes Apollodorus’ deWnition of pariambis is extremely signiWcant, because it takes us back to the mid-second century bce, when Apollodorus of Athens was active in Alexandria. Not only did Apollodorus write a work on etymologies22 but he also edited Epicharmus’ plays in ten volumes, probably commenting on them as well.23 It is precisely in a fragment of Epicharmus’ that we Wnd the earliest extant instance of the word pariambis (ÆæØÆ ). The fragment comes from the Periallus (fr. 108 KA), and is quoted by Athenaeus (183c) in a section on musical instruments:
20 At Wrst sight Apollodorus appears to deWne the ÆæØÆ as being ‘composed for iamboi’ or ‘made to go with iamboi’. However, in scholia and lexicography the construction of Ææ þ accusative þ ØBŁÆØ is standard for the derivation of one word from another, similar to I þ genitive þ ØBŁÆØ, for example: ŒØÆç ø Ææªø ŒØçÅ ªaæ c Iº ŒÆ ºªıØ: ØØ b Ææa f Œ Æ çÆd ØBŁÆØ c ºØ ŒÆd źF e ØÆ Ø æŒ Æ (Hsch. s.v., cf. Schol. in Hom. Il. 24.235a; Schol. in Aristoph. Thesm. 130; Schol. in Eurip. Tr. 14). Moreover, the construction of Ææ þ acc. meaning ‘ab’, is frequently used by grammarians and lexicographers (cf. LSJ s.v. Ææ C.I.6.b and Stephanus s.v.; Dickey (2007), 117). The construction is equivalent to I þ gen. and KŒ þ gen., which, as mentioned above, can be construed with ØBŁÆØ (Hsch. s.v. Æ
Ææ Ç Ø, ŒıŁºÅ; Schol. in Aristoph. Vesp. 140b; Schol. Pind. I. 5.1b (OÆ ØBŁÆØ); Schol. in Dem. 18.102; Schol. in Thuc. 5.103.1). 21 Hesychius used the verb ÆæØÆ Ç Ø, not attested elsewhere, to explain NÆ Æıº E as playing pariambides with the aulos along with the kithara and song ( e Ø ÆPºF ÆæØÆ Ç Ø –Æ fi B ŒØŁæfi Æ ŒÆd fiTfi B, Ø 42). 22 Cf. Ath. 63d, 483a, and 663a; PfeiVer (1968), 260. 23 Porphyr. Vit. Plot. 24 ¼ FGrH 244T 18; æd ¯Øåæı FGrH 244 F 213. Cf. PfeiVer (1968), 264.
236
The Performance of Iambos ºÆ b åæ Ø, ŒÆd Æıº E çØ24 y çe ŒØŁæÆØ ÆæØÆ Æ L b ª ªŁ Ø ıŒØH Œæ ªH IŒæÆÇÆ. Semele is dancing and a wise man y accompanies them with pariambides on the pipes with a kithara; and she is happy when she hears the notes struck again and again.25
The Sicilian Epicharmus composed the Periallus in the early Wfth century bce. According to Webster’s reconstruction, the play may have been ‘a description in anapaestic tetrameters of the revels of satyrs or fat men in the presence of Semele’.26 Our fragment describes Semele dancing to music. It is, however, diYcult to assess the role of the kithara in this fragment. The verb Æıº E in the singular suggests only one instrumentalist playing.27 If ŒØŁæÆØ is to be taken with ç , the fragment describes a skilled kitharist28 piping pariambides in accompaniment. It is, though, diYcult to grasp how a kitharist would ‘play the aulos’, unless he does not literally play it but rather imitates its sound on the kithara.29 The historian Philochorus (c.340 – c.260 bce) in the third book of his Attic History (ap. Ath. 637f ¼ FGrH 328 F 23) ascribes to Lysander of Sicyon the invention of aulos-like performances on the kithara.30 Barker takes this to mean 24 Schweighaeuser’s conjecture; the paradosis is ƺØçØ. Grotefend conjectured fi Ø çØ. 25 Translated by Olson (2006), vol. 2, 361. 26 DTC 2, 270–1. 27 The context of music and dance makes Schweighaeuser’s emendation (Æıº E) highly probable. The verb is attested in Alcman 37b PMG (and 87b PMG). The word kithara was transmitted in the nominative; the dative is Casaubon’s emendation. Villebrunius conjectured ‘ÆıºFØ (vel ÆıºH Ø dorice) [ÆıºF puto voluerat] çØ çH ŒØŁæÆ ÆæØÆ Æ . . . Se´me`le dance en chœur, et de leurs Xuˆtes ils accompagnent habilement les pariambides de leur cithare’, Schweighaeuser (1802), 675. 28 IdentiWed by Schweighaeuser as Dionysos, and as Apollo by Morel (1928), 163–4 through an unconvincing emendation of ç into *E . 29 A similar practice though involving singing was familiar to Plato, to which he objected: ŒÆd ÆPºfiø Æ c ÆE ŒØŁÆæfiø ÆØ Ø Ø (R. 700d). Grotefend’s fi Ø would provide a closer analogy. 30 *غ åæ K ª Ł ‘¸Ææ, çÅ , › ØŒıØ ŒØŁÆæØ c æH Å c łØºŒØŁÆæØ ØŒ, ÆŒæf f ı K Æ ŒÆd c çøc hªŒ ØÆ, ŒÆd c Æıº ŒØŁæØØ, fi w æH Ø ƒ æd ¯ ª KåæÆ : ŒÆd æØ ºg c ı Æ c æåıÆ K E łØºE ŒØŁÆæØ ÆE åæÆ
Musical Performance of Iamboi
237
the simulation on the kithara of the musical eVect of the aulos, a development that he believes may go back to the second half of the sixth century.31 If ŒØŁæÆØ is taken with Æıº E, our fragment could describe the same practice: ‘a skilled one plays on the kithara auloslike pariambides’. Lacking knowledge of this musical eVect, ancient lexicography understood the fragment as a reference to playing the aulos ‘together with’ the kithara.32 Notwithstanding the textual and interpretative uncertainties we face in this fragment of Epicharmus, it nevertheless emerges that, either accompanied by the aulos or imitating the aulos, pariambides are musical pieces for kithara. As we have seen in Chapter 7, lexicographers deWne pariambides as nomoi. Going back to Hesychius and Apollodorus, it is very likely that the latter found the rare word pariambis in one of Epicharmus’ plays, possibly the Periallus, and commented on it, and that our lexicographical material goes back to him. To what extent is Apollodorus reliable on the role of pariambides in Greek music and their connection to iamboi? He had access to sources of information that are lost to us, and his knowledge probably reXects at least fourth-century bce practice, or information stemming from some other source, such as Aristoxenus. Therefore, we can take as a real possibility that both iambis and pariambis refer to tunes for the kithara (ŒØŁÆæ Ø) played either with additional aulos accompaniment or by imitating on the kithara the eVects of the aulos. If the tunes were played by a kitharoidos, a kithara-singer, as Hesychius (Hsch. 927) indicates, pariambides were not only instrumental melodies but involved song as well. håæÆ æH KŒØŁæØ ŒÆd N ı ŒÆd ªÆØ, e ŒÆº ıæت , ŒÆd ZæªÆ ºÆ H æe ÆP F, ŒÆd e æAªÆ ÆPÆ åæe æØ Æ æH . 31 Cf. Barker (1982), 268; (1984a), 300. 32 In addition to þ genitive for accompanying music, þ dative is also attested: ÆPºÅ BæØ æ Ł ŒØ (Hes. Sc. 283). Certainly a deWnition of pariambides as ‘pieces for kithara player accompanied by the aulos’ would suit the fragment well, except for the emended verb in the singular. It would also support Schweighaeuser’s hypothesis of Æıº E, or at least that Athenaeus and the lexicographers, or their source, had a word connected with the aulos. On the other hand, Grotefend’s conjecture fi Ø çØ implies singing and not aulos-playing. At any rate, there is a reference to a musical eVect. Could the reference to the density of the sound (ıŒ ) in Epicharmus’ fragment refer to a special eVect played on the aulos?
238
The Performance of Iambos
A third term with the NÆ - element is iambyke (NÆ ŒÅ), the name of a stringed musical instrument. Athenaeus (638e) found the word in a passage from Eupolis’ Heilotes (148 Austin ¼ 112 Olivieri) in which a certain Gnesippus33 is mentioned as the one who invented nocturnal songs for adulterers, accompanied by iambyke and trigonos:
a ÅØå æı ŒÆd ºŒA Øø ı IæåÆE I Ø › b ˆØ Ø IŒ Ø: Œ E ıŒ æ yæ ØåE I Æ KŒŒÆº EŁÆØ ªıÆEŒÆ å Æ NÆ ŒÅ ŒÆd æ ªø. It is old-fashioned to sing the songs of Stesichorus and Alcman and Simonides. Gnesippus is the one to hear. He is the man who invented night-time songs for adulterers, for calling out women, using iambyke and trigonos.34
The iambyke mentioned by Eupolis is a musical instrument. Phillis of Delos, in the second book of On Music (ap. Ath. 636b), noted the iambyke among other stringed instruments, and said that it accompanied the singing of iamboi.35 A similar explanation is found in Hesychius and the Suda.36 Phillis further distinguished between the instrument that accompanied sung iamboi, the iambyke, and the klepsiambos, which was used to accompany the recitation of poems composed in iambic metre: ‘he says that they called iambykai those [instruments] to which they sang the iamboi, and those to which they recited [poems] in those metres, they called klepsiamboi’ (K x ªæ, çÅ , f N ıfi q NÆ ŒÆ KŒºı K x b Ææ ºª Ç a K E æØ Œº łØ ı). It is diYcult to assess the meaning of
33 Athenaeus refers to Gnesippus as ÆتØƪæç B ƒºÆæA Å (638d). On Gnesippus and the type of poetry he composed, see Davidson (2000) and Hordern (2003), with further references. 34 Translated by Davidson (2000), 41. 35 Ath. 636b: ŒÆd * ººØ › ˜ºØ K ı æfiø æd ıØŒB ØÆçæ Ø çÅd ÅŒ Æ ÆªØ, ºªø o ø ç ØŒ , ÅŒ , ÆªØ , Æ FŒÆØ, NÆ FŒÆØ,
æ ªøÆ, Œº ł Æ Ø, ŒØÆł , K åæÆ: K x ªæ, çÅ , f N ı fi q NÆ ŒÆ KŒºı K x b Ææ ºª Ç a K E æØ Œº łØ ı: ƪØÆ b < K x > a Øa ÆH ŒÆd æe YÆ a æÅ H fi I ø æÆ. 36 NÆ FŒÆØ ZæªÆÆ ıØŒ < æ ªøÆ > K x P N ıfi q (Hsch. Ø 49 and Suid. s.v.); YæÅ ÆØ b K ( æØ ŒÆd TŁÅ, u çÆØ, ‹ Ø æe ÆP e N ı fi q (Photius s.v.).
Musical Performance of Iamboi
239
Ææƺª Ç ŁÆØ.37 Either the text is corrupt, and we should emend it into ÆæÆŒÆ ºª Ç ,38 or Ææƺª Ç ŁÆØ was simply used in the sense of ÆæÆŒÆ Æºª Ç ŁÆØ. At any rate, the klepsiambos appears to be associated with recitative of iamboi or pieces in iambic trimeter (ÆæÆŒÆ Æºª). As we have seen, the singing and recitative of iambic poems or iambic trimeters to musical accompaniment was traditionally ascribed to Archilochus, and Ps.-Plutarch, possibly following Glaucus of Rhegium, credited Archilochus with precisely those musical inventions. If, as it seems, Phillis follows Aristoxenus’ book on musical instruments ( æd Oæªø; cf. Ath. 182f),39 the connection between iambyke and klepsiambos and the musical delivery of poems or pieces in iambic trimeters may also be Aristoxenian in origin.40 Was Phillis (or Aristoxenus) referring to iambos as a kind of composition, or do ƒ YÆ Ø and a K E æØ actually refer to lyric and recited iambics of tragedy and comedy? Dramatic performances in the classical period were usually accompanied by the aulos and not by stringed instruments. Moreover, for iambic lines one would expect a NÆ EÆ, while a K E æØ seems to imply a noun such as ØÆ Æ, ‘poems’, ºÅ, ‘songs’, vel sim. It seems therefore that Phillis was referring to the singing and recitation of iambos as a literary genre.41 If Phillis followed Aristoxenus, a connection between iambyke and klepsiambos and iamboi may be dated back to the late fourth century, if not for the actual practice of setting iamboi to music, at least for a conceptual association between iambos and melos. 37 The word is used for intellectual activities involving fraud or disguise (LSJ s.v). Perhaps the verb implies some sort of musical distortion, as suggested by Gulick’s translation: ‘Those, he says, with which they chanted iambic verses they call iambucas; those with which they recited in distorted fashion metrical verses, they called clepsiambi’ (Gulick (1955), vol. 6, 433). The name klepsiambos could also imply something of a distortion, if we take the compound as ‘furtive or hidden iambos’. 38 Hermann’s emendation. 39 Wegner, RE 19. 2430, s.v. ‘Phillis Delius’; Barker (1988), 104. 40 Wehrli (1967), vol. 2, 79. 41 West suggests that Æ ŒÅ and NÆ ŒÅ are two diVerent renderings of the same foreign word. He considers the assumption that the iambyke was used to accompany the singing of iamboi to be a speculation by Hellenistic antiquarians (West (1992), 75). It must be noted, however, that the fragments in which these words appear oVer suitable informal occasions for the performance of iambos in the way reconstructed by West: dance and rejoicing in music (Epicharmus), serenades for adulterers (Eupolis).
240
The Performance of Iambos
To sum up, three terms attested in the Wfth century bce contain the element NÆ -: NÆ (Aeschylus), ÆæØÆ (Epicharmus), and NÆ ŒÅ (Eupolis). In addition to the etymological link, which in itself is insuYcient proof of musical performance, the Hellenistic scholars Apollodorus of Athens and Phillis of Delos provide explanations that connect the terms to music and to iambos, and this information may well go back to Aristoxenus of Tarentum. Therefore, it is possible that a connection between these words and iambos was perceived already in Epicharmus’ and Eupolis’ times, and that the connection in some way reXected actual practice. The link is, nonetheless, tenuous. However, the occasions to which these works appear connected are consistent with the contexts of performance suggested by archaic testimonies (Chapters 5 and 6). Epicharmus fr. 108 describes Semele dancing to musical accompaniment, and taking pleasure in dance and music. Eupolis fr. 148 describes Gnesippus’ songs as carriers of erotic content. They are performed at night, possibly at a komos, at a nocturnal festival, ‘or some kind of street entertainment put on by professionals’, as Davidson has recently suggested,42 or perhaps in a sympotic context.43 If iambyke was used for singing iamboi, and if pariambides were kithara tunes for accompanying iamboi, iamboi were probably perceived as compatible with such occasions for the informal performance of poetry.44
3. PL ATO’S L AW S 9 3 5 E : W E R E IAMBOI SUNG? We turn now to Plato, to a testimony that has been invoked as evidence for musical performance of iamboi. As I showed in Chapter 7, section 2.iii, Plato’s use of the terms iambos and iambeion is consistent with fourth-century bce use, including Aristotle’s. Indeed, we Wnd in Plato’s works the term iambeion used for a metrical unit, i.e. the iambic trimeter (Euthd. 42 Davidson (2000), 49. Davidson further suggests that these songs were called Æ ªØÆ and were an entertainment performed by women. 43 Hordern (2003). 44 Needless to say, the contexts of dance, music, and serenades belong to a Wctional world and have no necessary direct referents in the real world. Brown (1997), 37–8
Musical Performance of Iamboi
241
291d1, R. 380a5, 602b9), and iambos both for a rhythm (R. 400a–c) and for a literary genre (Ion 534c). In Laws 935e, a passage mentioning iamboi within a regulation against slander, the general context and the proximity to the word comedy (Œøfiø Æ) indicate that the term iamboi refers to a literary genre as a type of public performance. However, is it possible to infer from this passage that iamboi were also sung? The answer to this question depends on our understanding of the syntax of the initial phrase. It is useful to quote the passage again, with a translation showing the two possible interpretations. ØÅ fi B c Œøfiø Æ X Ø N ø j ıH ºfiø Æ c K ø º ªfiø NŒ Ø, ŁıfiH ¼ ı ŁıF, ÅÆH ÅÆ H ºØ H Œøfiø E Ka Ø I ØŁfi B, f IŁºŁ Æ K æª Ø KŒ B åæÆ e ÆæÆ ÆPŁÅ æ , j ÇÅØFŁÆØ ÆE æØd ƒ æÆE F Ł F y i Iªg fi q. A poet of comedy or of any singing <either> of iamboi or of the Muses
or:
A poet of comedy or of any of the iamboi, or of the Muses’ song
must not be allowed to ridicule any of the citizens in any way, neither in narration nor in impersonation,45 neither with nor without anger. If anyone ever disobeys, the competition oYcials must drive him away altogether from the country that very day, or be Wned three minae, dedicated to the god whose contest is being held.
The key to establishing whether this passage implies the singing of iamboi lies in the interpretation of the initial phrase (ØÅ fi B c Œøfiø Æ X Ø N ø j ıH ºfiø Æ) either as a disjunction of two members (comedy or any singing of iamboi or Muses) or as a disjunction of three members (comedy or any iamboi or the Muses’ song). Before we look into these two alternatives, a clariWcation of the meaning of meloidia ( ºfiø Æ) in association with the Muses or with iamboi is in place. Unlike the English ‘melody’, which can mean either ‘song’ or ‘tune’, the Greek ºfiø Æ was used for ‘music’ only at a later stage (cf. Philod. takes the testimonies surveyed in this section as possibly suggesting that ‘in Sicily YÆ Ø were works performed by a chorus’ (p. 38); cf. West (1974), 35. 45 Saunders (1972), 117.
242
The Performance of Iambos
Mus. p. 12 K). In Plato’s work it means ‘singing’ (e.g. Lg. 790e, 798e) and ‘song’ (e.g. Lg. 812d), i.e. the combination of music and words, ºfiø (e.g. Lg. 723d) and ºfiø E (e.g. Lg. 655) meaning ‘singer’ and ‘singing’ respectively. As for the term Muse (FÆ), it is used by Plato in discussions on poetry for referring either to ‘music’ (¼ ıØŒ, cf. Lg. 722d7, 967e2, 790e4) or ‘poetry’ (¼ ÅØ, Lg. 899e3, Ep. 975d5) that may be set to music and may even involve dance (e.g. Lg. 813a).46 The expression ıH ºfiø Æ, ‘Muses’ song’, is not attested elsewhere in Plato’s extant works. It probably involves a reference to any sung poetry, which Plato often calls simply melos (º, e.g. Pol. 379a; 398d), and thus could be paraphrased as ‘melic poetry’.47 To be sure, the tragedians use FÆ/FÆØ in a similar sense,48 and in another passage of Plato’s Laws (829d) we Wnd FÆØ encompassing the whole realm of poetry and music (ÆææÅ Æ K ÆØ).49 Alternatively, the ‘melody of some of the iamboi’ ( Ø N ø . . . ºfiø Æ) would refer to the song, or rather, the singing of iamboi. The pronoun Ø ( Ø) is perhaps the main diYculty of the passage, and not surprisingly the attempted emendations have dealt precisely with it.50 As Stallbaum has pointed out, the indeWnite Ø appears typically in constructions with the disjunctive X.51 As a substantive pronoun it probably has a collective sense: ‘manch einer’, 46 Ast (1836), s.v. FÆ; Des Places (1964), s.v. FÆ. The word FÆ is also used for philosophy or doctrine. 47 Of course, º can also mean only ‘music’, whereas as a technical term it refers to what later Greek literary criticism called melic poetry (e.g. R. 607a, d). 48 e.g. Aesch. Suppl. 674 [¼703], Eum. 308; Soph. Tr. 643. 49 Œæ Ø b ÆP H ø Ææ fiH ÆØ ı fi B ŒÆd E ¼ººØ çºÆØ, F IØ ø ÆP E ªæÆ, ÆææÅ Æ K ÆØ rÆØ Ø, E b ¼ººØ Å Æ Kı Æ ª ª ŁÆØ, Å ØÆ ºA fi ¼ Ø I ŒØ FÆ c ŒæØ ø H çıºŒø, Å i ø fi q H ¨Ææı ŒÆd ˇæç ø oø, Iºº ‹Æ ƒ æa ŒæØŁ Æ ØÆ Æ K ŁÅ E Ł E, ŒÆd ‹Æ IªÆŁH Z ø IæH łª Æ j KÆØF ØÆ KŒæ ŁÅ æ ø æA e ØF (Plato, Lg. 829d). 50 Ast (1814) suggests ØÅ fi B Œøfiø Æ j N ø X Ø ıH ºfiø Æ (the emendation seems to be accepted by Morrow (1960), 374, but see England’s (1921) objection on 502). Bartol (1992b), 274 suggests Øø N ø as a possible emendation, but does not Wnd enough reasons to suspect that the text is corrupt. Bowie suggested to me ØÅ fi B j Œøfiø Æ. One might want to read Ø N ı but, as we shall see, this causes hiatus with the following word, X. 51 Stallbaum (1859), to paragraph 644, gives the following list of X þ Ø: 643b, 740c, 838c, 867b, 898e, 933d, 934a, 701d, 710e, 792e, 800d, 805e, 806a, etc.
Musical Performance of Iamboi
243
‘jeder’; ‘every’, ‘any’.52 As an adjectival pronoun it could be a case of a ‘superXuous’ Ø. Ast suggests that the pronoun Ø can be rendered as ‘auch’ after X.53 In that case the pronoun may not imply a restriction at all. The Wrst possibility for the interpretation of the initial phrase consists in taking the pronoun Ø as an attribute of ºfiø Æ: ‘a poet of comedy or of some (any) sung composition involving iamboi or melic poetry’. Here the attributive Ø functions almost as an indeWnite article.54 The second possibility consists in taking Ø as a noun with the partitive genitive N ø:55 ‘a poet of comedy or of some (any) of the iamboi or of the Muses’ song’. Both types of construction, namely, with attributive and substantive Ø combined with X, are found in Plato’s Laws. A useful example of both types is the following: a. º ø X Ø NØ ı ŒÆ ÆÆ Æ (714a6) ‘the city or any citizen’ b. º ø X Ø NØø H NÆçØŒF Æ (848a6) ‘the city or any of the citizens’. In most constructions of this type in the Laws there is a tendency for the pronoun to function as attributive (type a), i.e. modifying a noun in the same grammatical case and number. In both cases, as we shall see, the pronoun Ø has an additional role, namely, the avoidance of hiatus. The two members option (comedy or any singing of iamboi or Muses) was adopted in the standard English translation of Plato’s 52 Ku¨hner–Gerth II.1, 662; Schwyzer II, 213. 53 Ast (1836), 395 cites the following examples involving three terms: (a) Phdr. 248d: j çغŒºı j ıØŒF Øe ŒÆd Kæø ØŒF. (b) Tht. 174d: Æ H ø, x ı Å j ØÆ X ØÆ ıŒ º. (c) Plt. 296b: ÆEÆ X Ø ¼æÆ j ŒÆd ªıÆEŒÆ. (d) Lg. 950d: Å fiÆ ø ŒæıØ j æ ÆØ j ŒÆ ØØ Ł øæE. It can be objected that the meaning ‘auch’ in these instances derives from other elements, namely ŒÆ and x. Alternative explanations can be attempted: (a), (c), and (d), which have ‘ŒÆ in one of the members, may be taken as cases in which the choice between terms is doubtful and/or various terms are admissible (Ku¨hner–Gerth II.2, 297.2), whereas (b) may be explained as a case of ‘diYdent’ Ø (see n. 66). These four examples diVer from our passage, in which neither ŒÆ nor comparison appears. 54 Ku¨hner–Gerth II.1, 662. 55 Ku¨hner–Gerth II.1, 330; Schwyzer II, 115–16.
244
The Performance of Iambos
Laws.56 However, as Bartol pointed out, the resulting word order is odd, with Ø too far from ºfiø Æ.57 To my mind, the oddity of the expression lies in the lack of a clear mark for the additional disjunction (N ø j ıH) appearing between Ø and ºfiø Æ. When Plato uses a second disjunction, one that is not on the same syntactical level, this is often signalled in the Laws by a change of case or by the use of prepositions or by another conjunction (such as Y . . . Y . . . or something similar).58 What is more, in the Laws, and most particularly in the phrasing of laws, disjunctions attempt to cover all possibilities, making clear-cut distinctions of categories, as in our passage ‘neither in narration nor in impersonation, neither with nor without anger’ ( º ªfiø NŒ Ø, ŁıfiH ¼ ı ŁıF).59 In our case only the change of number, from singular ( Ø . . . ºfiø Æ) to plural (N ø j ıH) may be taken as a mark of a second disjunction, unless the phonic pattern 56 Bury (1967): ‘a composer of a comedy or of any iambic or lyric song’. 57 Bartol (1992b), 273–4. 58 e.g. ˇÆ b æ º ØÆ ªø X Ø ¼ººÅ æd a ØÆF Æ ƒ æıæª Æ ºº ø j ªØªø j ª ª
ø æŒı K Ø º EŁÆØ (774e9–775a2); i , n ª ª ÆØ , OºØªŒØ , Øa Łıe Æ cæ j Åæ e j ŁıªÆ æÆ ºÅªÆE X ØØ æ fiø ØÆ fiø Œ fi Å (868c5–7); › b Øa NŒ Æ ¼ØÆ j Ø IŒæ ØÆ H j ºıH, K ç Ø Øº Æ X ØØ KØŁı ÆØ j çŁ Ø j ŁıE ıØ Ø ªØª (934a3–5). Cf. 875d7 (a second disjunction of inWnitives) 655e3–5 (h . . . h . . . ) and texts in the following note ( Y . . . Y . . . ). 59 Cf. Lg. 844e2: Y K E Æ F åøæ Ø Y ŒÆd K ¼ººø; 854d1–2: Ka b fi q Fº j ; e1–4: º Å b ¼ Ø ØF æH IÆçÆfi B, æd Ł f j æd ªÆ j æd ºØ M،Ōg H ªºø ØÆ ŒÆd Iææ ø IØŒØH; 864d3–5: ø Ø i Yø æ Ø Ø Æ , j Ø j ªæfi Æ æ æfiø ı å , j ÆØ fi Æ åæ , P ø H Ø ø ØÆçæø. See also Lg. 829d quoted above, n. 49. The law on unintentional killing (Lg. 865a1–2) makes explicit the attempt to cover all categories and exempliWes the use of disjunctions for that purpose (865a3–c2): Øæ ŁÆ Øa ºı Æ e rı æØ ç ı Ł EÆØ f ı ( . . . ) ¯Y Ø K IªHØ ŒÆd ¼ŁºØ Å Ø ¼Œø, Y ÆæÆåæBÆ Y ŒÆd K æØ åæ Ø KŒ H ºÅªH, IŒ Ø ØÆ ç ºØ, j ŒÆ a º ‰Æ ø j ŒÆ a º Å c æe º , Øıø ¼ŒÅØ ½ H Iæå ø łØºE ÆØ j Øø ‹ºø IØıø c º ØŒc æAØ, ŒÆŁÆæŁ d ŒÆ a e KŒ ˜ ºçH ŒØŁ Æ æd
ø ø ŒÆŁÆæ ( . . . ) Ka b ÆP å Øæ , ¼Œø b IŒ fi Å Ø æ
æ, Y fiH (Æı F Æ Ø łØºfiH Y Oæªfiø j º Ø j Æ j ı Ø j ıæe j å ØH æ ºfi B j æ Ø Æ , ÆP e fiH (Æı F Æ Ø j Ø ( æø ø ø, ø ø b ‰ ÆP å Øæ, ŒÆ b Ø ø a Ø . In the Wrst part of the passage there is one set of possibilities covered by Y . . . Y . . . and another one by X . . . X . . . X . . . In the last part two categories are established by
Musical Performance of Iamboi
245
ðŒøÞfiø Æ . . . ð ºÞfiø Æ may be an indication of how to group the words in the phrase.60 Nevertheless, the resulting ambiguity is a-typical of Greek legal style. To be sure, our passage shares many characteristics of the legal style found in Plato’s Laws itself,61 in laws found in inscriptions, as well as in the texts of laws occasionally quoted by the Attic orators, such as the use of the third-person imperative, particularly c K ø, ‘must not be allowed’, usually construed with dative and inWnitive; the clause stating the punishment introduced by K þ subjunctive, and a noticeable lack of adjectives.62 In legal texts further speciWcation of the prohibition is most often given by two or more negatives such as . . . , . . . which usually state polarizations.63 The characteristic of legal texts that interests us most is the use of . . . X . . . X . . . , ‘. . . or . . . or . . .’, for enumerations tending to cover all the realms in which the prohibition is eVective.64 The text of the law of hybris preserved by Dem. 21.47 illustrates this: ¯ Ø æ Çfi Å Y ØÆ, j ÆEÆ j ªıÆEŒÆ j ¼æÆ, H Kº ıŁæø j H ºø, j Ææ Ø Øfi Å N ø Ø . . . If anyone treats with hybris any person, either child or woman or man, free or slave, or does anything unlawful against any of these . . . 65
Y . . . Y . . . and distinctions for the latter category are given with X . . . X . . . þ dative, whereas second disjunctions are given by X . . . X . . . þ genitive. 60 F. Condello, personal communication. 61 ThesleV (1967), 77, 166. 62 e.g. Dem. 49.87. The features mentioned are found in the legal texts cited in the following notes. 63 See, for example FD III, 1, 294 (col. 1, lines 1–17) a Delphian law on interest from the 4th cent. bce (cf. Asheri (1969), 105–8). 64 For similar use of X . . . X . . . in texts of laws transmitted by the Greek orators, see Dem. 24.105; 46.14 and 18; 43.71; Andocides 1.77–9. An early example from Eltynia, Crete, c.500 bce is found in IC I p. 90, no. 2: ½ÆN Œ Icæ j e Å0Œ Æ ÅØ j c ½- - - j - - - e j j IæÅ Ø j j Iª½ºÆ½Ø j j ı½ º æÆØ j j Ø ŒæØ Ð j j Ø Å[. . . . . ] . . . (‘and if a man strikes a minor not to [ . . . ] or in an andreion or in an agela or in a symposion or in a choros’, translated by Arnaoutoglou (1998), no. 32; ¼ Koerner no. 94). For further examples of enumerations using X . . . X . . . in inscriptions see also IC IV. 41 (¼ Koerner 127); SEG XII. 87.7–9, 16–20 (336 bce); IErythrai 1 (¼ Koerner 74); IG II2. 46; IG IX 12. 609 (Lokris ¼ Koerner 47). See also Lex. Rhet. 667.13 (cf. Pollux 8.52), probably Theophrastus’ citation of the actual text of the law on eisangelia Szegedy-Maszak (1981), 19–22. 65 Translated by MacDowell (1990), 117.
246
The Performance of Iambos
It is, therefore, in the realm of legal texts that we should look for parallels to our passage. Thus, the initial phrase of Lg. 935e must unambiguously state the categories of poetry covered by the prohibition. However, in inscriptions of laws or laws quoted by orators it is unusual to Wnd the indeWnite pronoun Ø in disjunctions using X . . . X . . . We do Wnd it, however, in Plato’s literary style, sometimes together with x and the like, used to soften a metaphor (the so-called ‘diYdent Ø’,66 e.g. Pl. Tht. 174d3–6). Often X Ø is placed at the end of an enumeration, in order to introduce a generalization that attempts to cover possibilities that are not mentioned (with additional pronouns such as ¼ºº, ØF , æ): X Ø H
Ø ø ¼ºº (Lg. 643c5), X ØØ ¼ººØ Ø Ø ÆŁÆØ (Lg. 708b4).67 However, in many cases the pronoun seems unnecessary; it cannot be taken literally as ‘some’ but rather as an indeWnite article. For example, in Plt. 296b6–7: ‘to a child, or to some man or also to a woman’ (ÆEÆ X Ø ¼æÆ j ŒÆd ªıÆEŒÆ).68 An important point, and one that has been overlooked, is that, whether the pronoun Ø plays a semantic role or not, its location in the phrase often has an additional function, that of avoiding hiatus. Indeed, in his latest works Plato tended to avoid the meeting of vowels in adjacent words.69 In the previously mentioned examples ‘the city or any citizen’, ‘the city or 66 In the same way as ı, the ‘diYdent’ Ø softens similes and metaphors (Dover (1997), 103 n. 20; 126 n. 63; Ku¨hner–Gerth II.2, 663–4; Dover (1993), 269 and 276). 67 Cf. Lg. 714d1, 722a4, 744e6, 849c4, 866e1, 869c7, 873e1, 873e7, 877e5 (two disjunctions, the Wrst with generalization, the second, marked by preposition, in polarization), 884a9, 918e2, 933d7, 936d2, 936e2–3, 955a2–3. In generalizations the indeWnite pronoun is often placed so as to avoid hiatus, as in łØºH b j H X
Ø ¼ººı H Kº ø (756a2). Cf. Lg. 708b4 (cited above), 744c4, 774e9, 780b5, 855c3, 920d4. 68 e.g. x e ºº Æ IªÆŁe ŁÆØ ª øæªe X ØÆ NŒ (‘for example, the man who intends to become a good builder or <some> farmer’, 643b). Cf. 655e3, 667b7–9, 69 ‘Life oVers various amusements, and anyone these days who can choose among them will come late to the study of hiatus in Greek prose. Germany in the 1880s, so it seems, was less fortunate’ . . . Reeve (1971), 514. The law of avoidance of hiatus, often called Blass’s law, is based on the stylometric study of Greek prose, particularly the orators (Blass (1887)). Reeve (1971), 514–15 outlines the relevant bibliography. See Dilts (1994); Pearson (1975); Pearson (1978), for reassessments of the topic and further bibliographical references. The incidence of hiatus in Plato’s dialogues (studied by Janell (1901)), as a criterion applied to the dating of Plato’s works is a matter of polemics.
Musical Performance of Iamboi
247
any of the citizens’, Ø avoids hiatus between X and NØ ı in type a, whereas the variation Ø NØø H in type b avoids the hiatus that NØ ı would cause with NÆçØŒF Æ. Thus, the choice of substantive pronoun (type b, Ø NØø H) instead of the attributive pronoun (type a, Ø NØ ı) may be made with the avoidance of hiatus in mind, as is often the case in Plato’s Laws.70 This is the function of Ø in our passage, namely, it avoids hiatus between X and N ø. Furthermore, the plural N ø, instead of the singular N ı that we would expect from the use of the singular nouns komoidia and meloidia, also avoids hiatus with the second X. The use of Ø N ø instead of merely N ı thus seems to serve euphonic purposes. Therefore, the initial phrase of our passage is equivalent to those disjunctions in which Plato, as legal texts usually do, oVers an enumeration without the indeWnite pronoun,71 thus: ØÅ fi B c Œøfiø Æ j N ı ½ Ø N ø j ıH ºfiø Æ. In sum, the initial phrase of Laws 935e states a disjunction of three terms, ‘comedy or iambos or Muses’ song’,72 thus presenting a neat distinction of the categories subject to prohibition, typical of Greek legal style. The realms of the prohibition coincide with three diVerent literary genres: comedy, iambos, and melos.73 That Plato would place a restriction on Œøfiø E (mocking) in melic poetry should come as no surprise, as personal invective can be found in the poetry of Sappho, Alcaeus, Anacreon, Timocreon of Rhodes, and even in some skolia (see Chapter 10). To conclude, our passage makes no contribution to the question whether iambos was conceived as a melic genre or at least as a genre that could occasionally be set to music. It is, however, an important testimony for the public performance of iamboi, and as such will be treated in Chapter 9, section 2.
70 e.g. Łº Ø X Ø ¼ææ (740c7, either in females or in males). Cf. 643b (cited in n. 68), 759b2, 855c, 867b2–3, 899a1. Further examples in notes above. On the low incidence of hiatus in Plato’s Laws, see Blass (1887), 459; Janell (1901), 306; ThesleV (1967), 67; Dover (1997), 177. 71 e.g. ÞıŁF j ºı j ÞÆ , 656c; ºº ø j ªØªø j ª ª
ø, 775a. Cf. Lg. 862d, 868e. 72 So in Die`s (1956); Saunders (1970); Pangle (1988), 338; Halliwell (1991a), 68. 73 The triad ‘comedy, iambos, melos’ can be seen as the psogic equivalent of tragedy, epic poetry, and lyric poetry, that is to say, in the mimetic, dramatic, and mixed modes.
248
The Performance of Iambos 4 . IAMBOS A ND T H E P Y T H IA N N O M O S
As we have seen in section 2, iambides and pariambides are kithara tunes, either accompanying or imitating the aulos. The technical term for the traditional patterns in which music was set is nomos.74 In ancient lexicography pariambides, pariamboi, and iamboi are deWned as nomoi (Pollux 4.66, 4.83–5, Photius s.v. Ææ Æ Ø). As a type of nomos, the term iambos appears to be directly connected to music.75 Although we know nothing about the musical pattern called iambos, the fact that the term was used for a type of rhythm at an early stage suggests that the name was used to refer to the rhythms in which it was cast.76 A special use of iambos in relation to music emerges in connection with the Pythian Nomos, a programme of instrumental music that became part of the traditional repertoire at Apollo’s festival in Delphi.77 Our sources (Strabo, Pollux, and the Schol. Vet. in Pind.) diverge in the information they contain about the author of the Pythian Nomos, the instrument on which it was played, and the number and names of its sections. They agree in that the Pythian Nomos musically represented the Wght of Apollo with the dragon. Strabo is our earliest source: ªg b › b IæåÆE K ˜ ºçE ŒØŁÆæfiøH Kª ŁÅ ÆØAÆ fi I ø N
e Ł : ŁÅŒÆ b ˜ ºç a b e ˚æØÆE º ƒ çØŒ ƒØŒe ŒÆd ªıØŒe K ¯Pæıº åı Ø ÆÆ çÆ Å ŒÆd —ŁØÆ KŒº Æ: æŁ Æ b E ŒØŁÆæfiøE ÆPºÅ ŒÆd ŒØŁÆæØ a åøæd fiTB, I Ø º n ŒÆº E ÆØ —ıŁØŒ : ÆP F æÅ K , ¼ªŒæıØ ¼ ØæÆ ŒÆ ÆŒ º ıe YÆ Ø ŒÆd Œ ıºØ æتª : K º Å b s $ØŁÅ, › ÆÆæå F ı æı — º Æ ı › ŒÆd f ºØÆ ı Æ K ŒÆ ºØ: º ÆØ b e IªHÆ F ` ººø e æe e æŒ Æ Øa F ºı E, ¼ªŒæıØ b
e æ Ø ÅºH, ¼ ØæÆ b c æ Å ŒÆ ØæÆ F IªH, ŒÆ ÆŒ º ıe b ÆP e e IªHÆ, YÆ b ŒÆd Œ ıº e 74 Barker (1984a), 249–55. 75 West (1971), 310 and n. 4. 76 West (1992), 216 suggests that the name of this nomos comes from its occasion of performance. 77 On the Pythian Nomos, see Kolk (1963), 41–7; West (1992), 212–14; d’Angour (1997), 338; Porter (2007), 10.
Musical Performance of Iamboi
249
KØÆØÆØe78 e ½ªØ Kd fi B Œfi Å a Ø ø ÞıŁH, z › b oØ K d NŒ E › YÆ ŒÆŒØE, æتªÆ b c Œº ØłØ F ŁÅæ ı, Øıø ‰ i ŒÆ Æ æç Kå ı Øa ıæت. (Strabo 9.3.10.9–18) As for the contests at Delphi, there was one in early times between citharoedes, who sang a paean in honour of the god; it was instituted by the Delphians. But after the Crisaean war, in the time of Eurylochus, the Amphictyons instituted equestrian and gymnastic contests in which the prize was a crown, and called them Pythian Games. And to the citharoedes they added both Xute-players and citharists who played without singing, who were to render a certain melody which is called the Pythian Nomos. There are Wve parts of it: angkrousis, ampeira, katakeleusmos, iambi and dactyli, and syringes. Now the melody was composed by Timosthenes, the admiral of the second Ptolemy, who also compiled The Harbours, a work in ten books; and through this melody he means to celebrate the contest between Apollo and the dragon, setting forth the prelude as anakrousis, the Wrst onset of the contest as ampeira, the contest itself as katakeleusmos, the triumph following the victory as iambus and dactylus, the rhythms being in two measures, one of which, the dactyl, is appropriate to hymns of praise, whereas the other, the iamb, is suited to reproaches, and the expiration of the dragon as syringes, since with syringes players imitated the dragon as breathing its last in hissings.79
According to Strabo, the Pythian Nomos was played on the kithara. However, according to Pollux (4.84) it was an auletic nomos.80 Furthermore, Pollux attributes the invention of the Pythian Nomos to Sakadas of Argos (4.79), who was active in the early sixth century bce,81 while Strabo credits Timosthenes of Rhodes (283–246 bce). 78 The word KØÆØÆØ (‘song of victory’, LSJ s.v.) is not attested elsewhere. KØÆØÆ Çø has late testimonies (DS 5.29, Plu. Marc. 22), but ÆØø Çø is attested since Herodotus (5.1, cf. Ar. Eq. 1318, Pax 555; X. An. 6.1.5), cf. LSJ s.vv. 79 Translated by Jones (1917–1932), vol. 4, 361–3. 80 F b —ıŁØŒF ı F ÆPºÅ ØŒF æÅ , EæÆ ŒÆ ÆŒ º ıe NÆ ØŒe E ŒÆ Æå æ ıØ: ºøÆ K d › B F ººø åÅ æe e æŒ Æ: ŒÆd K b fi B æfi Æ Øæfi A e , N ¼Ø K Ø F IªH K b fiH ŒÆ ÆŒ º ıfiH æŒÆº E ÆØ e æŒ Æ, K b fiH NÆ ØŒfiH å ÆØ: K æØ ºÅç b
e NÆ ØŒe ŒÆd a ÆºØ ØŒa ŒæÆ Æ ŒÆd e O Øe ‰ F æŒ K fiH
FŁÆØ ıæ f O Æ: e b E źE c ŒÅ F Ł F: K b
fi B ŒÆ Æåæ Ø › Ł e a KØ ŒØÆ åæ Ø (Pollux 4.84). 81 West (1992), 212. On Sakadas of Argos see Paus. 2.22.8–10; 10.7.4; [Plu.] de Mus. 1134a.; Ath. 610c (ÆŒÆ is Casaubon’s emendation of the manuscripts’ reading ÆŒÆ ı).
250
The Performance of Iambos
Strabo’s attribution to a Hellenistic general must be a mistake,82 or perhaps the text is corrupt.83 Sakadas of Argos is also mentioned by Pausanias (10.7.7; cf. [Plu.] de Mus. 1134c) as a winner in the Wrst Pythian auletic contests in 586, 582, and 578 bce. Thus, in the sixth century bce the Pythian Nomos was a piece for aulos-playing.84 Although they oVer somewhat diVerent names, both Strabo and Pollux state that the Pythian Nomos comprised Wve sections,85 while the Scholiast to Pindar mentions seven parts.86 The section that is of interest for us is the one Strabo calls ‘iambos and daktylos’, the movement celebrating Apollo’s triumph over the dragon. The scholia to Pindar take the two as separate sections with the names iambos and daktylos respectively. Pollux (4.84) gives the name iambikos (NÆ ØŒ ) to the third section of the Pythian Nomos, which described the Wght, whereas he calls the movement in which the victory was portrayed spondeion ( E). Whatever the diVerences of detail, there is little doubt that iambos (which Pollux renders by the adjective iambikos) was a traditional name. Strabo describes the section of the Pythian Nomos called ‘iambos and daktylos’ as a celebration of the victory in using iambic and dactylic rhythms ( a Ø ø ÞıŁH). He further connects rhythm with content: the iambos is appropriate for kakismoi (ŒÆŒØ ). This is an unusual word in the literary record, but Pollux mentions it in a list of words meaning blame, abuse, and invective 82 Rutherford (2001), 26 n. 12. 83 Guhrauer. 84 Porter (2007), 10 oVers a vivid description of the Pythian Nomos: ‘The composition was structured in Wve sections, each named according to the stage of action represented, and culminating in a joyous celebration of victory. It was clearly an intricate work, and it must have been an extended performance as well. It was also a showpiece for the virtuoso aulete, who used his instrument to create all manner of sound-eVects, from a trumpet-call to a tooth-gnashing sound (achieved by pressing the tongue or reed against the teeth), both of these in the central combat segment, to a surigmos sound mimicking the hissing of the dying serpent.’ 85 See Kolk (1963), 41–7, for an analysis of sources for the sections of the Pythian Nomos. 86 ŒÆd IŒ Æ e ZçØ e —ŁøÆ Iªø Ç ÆØ e —ıŁØŒe IªHÆ ŒÆ a ( Å æÆ Eæ , ‹ Ø I ØæŁÅ B åÅ B æe e ŁÅæ YÆ b Øa c ºØæ Æ c ª Å ÆP fiH æe B åÅ ºª ÆØ ªaæ NÆ Ç Ø e ºØæ E Œ ıº b Ie ˜Øı, ‹ Ø æH y Œ E Ie F æ Ł Ø FÆØ ˚æÅ ØŒe b Ie ˜Ø Å æfiH , ‹ Ø ˆB e Æ E K Ø æØªÆ b Øa e F Zç ø ıæت : o ø b s ŒÆ Å æH › H —ıŁ ø Iª (hyp. Pind. Pyth. 24–32).
Musical Performance of Iamboi
251
(3.138; 4.32–3; 5.117).87 The scholiast to Pindar (see n. 86) oVers a similar explanation of the name iambos by reference to loidoria, abuse (YÆ b Øa c ºØæ Æ c ª Å ÆP fiH æe B åÅ ºª ÆØ ªaæ NÆ Ç Ø e ºØæ E). Thus, Strabo’s description refers to metre and expands on the reason for using such metre. It is clear that our sources here reXect the view of the iambic metre as appropriate for abuse held in the educational paradigm. We should therefore distinguish between the information that our sources report and the explanations they oVer. Given that the rhythmical meaning of iambos goes back to the Wfth century bce or even earlier, it is probable that the term iambos was descriptive of the type of rhythm dominant in that section of the Pythian Nomos. The Pythian Nomos, then, included a movement called iambos, probably by virtue of the type of rhythm involved. We do not know how much musicians could improvise,88 but the movements of the Pythian Nomos seem to have remained fairly stable as part of the Delphic festival from Sakadas’ times onwards. This, together with other references to iamboi as nomoi, suggests that the term iambos was used for a type of melody, at least by professional musicians, from the sixth century bce.
5. THE OCCASIONAL SINGING OF IAMBOI The term iambos was used in musical theory of the mid-Wfth century bce, if not earlier, as a technical term referring to a type of rhythm, probably a ratio between quantities (Chapter 7). It was also the name of a movement of the Pythian Nomos since Sakadas of Argos in the sixth century bce. Other words attested in the Wfth century bce containing the element -iamb- such as iambis and pariambis, together with iambos itself, were names of musical tunes and nomoi. Furthermore, two musical instruments are attested later for singing (iambyke) and reciting (klepsiambos) iambic poems (Phillis of Delos, 2nd cent. bce). Hence, the evidence suggests that there was 87 Meineke elides the obvious intrusion of the explanatory ‰ ŒÆd e NÆ Ç Ø. 88 West (1992), 212–13.
252
The Performance of Iambos
a connection between iamboi and music from an early time. The link I am establishing here is mostly a conceptual one, that is to say, a similar term (iambos) was used for rhythm, melody, and poetry, and -iamb- appears in names of musical instruments and melodies. Although the conceptual link is not enough to prove that iambos was in practice a melic genre, it certainly presents the possibility that, given the connection of iambos with several aspects of music such as rhythm, musical nomoi, and musical instruments, some iamboi at least were occasionally sung or performed with musical accompaniment.89 To be sure, Chamaeleon of Heraclea Pontica, a Peripatetic active at the end of the fourth century bce, said in his work On Stesichorus that ‘not merely the poems of Homer were chanted but also those of Hesiod and Archilochus’ (+ÆÆغø b K fiH æd ÅØå æı ŒÆd ºfiøÅŁBÆ çÅØ P a ˇæı, Iººa ŒÆd a ˙ Ø ı ŒÆd æåغ åı, Ath. 620c, see Chapter 9, sect. 4). It is possible that Chamaeleon’s reference involves some of Archilochus’ iamboi, and that it applies, if not to the original performance by the Parian poet, at least to sung re-performance in Stesichorus’ (mid-6th cent. bce) time. The fact that in the late Wfth century bce Archilochus was considered to have made signiWcant contributions to the development of music supports the hypothesis of the occasional melic rendition of iambic poetry. If, as I suggest, during the archaic and classical periods iamboi could at times be sung and perhaps accompanied by a musical instrument, it follows that the manner of performance of iamboi was not perceived as a deWning feature of the genre, at least not before the Hellenistic period. Nor was it a dominant feature. Consequently, diVerent possible manners of performance of iamboi were discarded by later theory, which in turn contributed to their oblivion. 89 Bartol (1992b) argues for the musical accompaniment or singing of some iamboi in the 4th cent. bce.
9 Public Performance of Iamboi Since the rise of performance awareness in the study of archaic Greek poetry, scholars have tended to search for the speciWc context in which ancient iamboi were performed. Of course, like most archaic and classical poetry, ancient iamboi were embodied in distinct performance scenarios. However, as I have argued in previous chapters, there was no single occasion of performance for the ancient iambos, and since the various performance scenarios were not exclusive to iambos, it follows that context could not have been essential in determining the genre.1 My analysis of Archil. 215W in Chapter 5 clariWes this proposition. The fragment suits any occasion that has been proposed for the performance of iamboi: public performances at festivals, public performances in theatres, and more informal ones at komoi and symposia. Still, I was able to deWne a general type of occasion and a general function for the iamboi mentioned in Archil. 215W: the context of ritualized commensality or conviviality, either restricted to some (i.e. symposia) or more public (religious festivals or public meals), with entertainment as the main function. Thus, rather than searching for a single type of performance scenario in order to identify the ‘essence’ of iamboi, we should look for the diVerent occasions on which they were performed and re-performed, as aspects signiWcant to the history of the reception and transmission of iambic poetry. The general context of ritualized commensality or conviviality that 1 The diYculties caused by an approach exclusively focused on occasion of performance have already been noted by Kantzios (2005), 29: ‘If the setting of performance is used as the sole criterion, it is obvious that iambus is a sympotic genre and as such cannot be distinguished from other kinds of poetry also performed at the symposium (for instance, elegy), unless some further element is added to the criteria, such as meter.’
254
The Performance of Iambos
I propose embraces the ritual, civic, and domestic spheres and can be physically located in andrones, prytaneia, hestiataria as well as in open spaces.2 This broad deWnition goes beyond the aristocratic symposion, suggesting a general type of performance scenario in which food, and especially wine, was shared thus creating a social bond between participants, be they philoi, hetairoi, members of a club or association, or participants at a festival. The two ideological positions characterized by Ian Morris as the ‘elitist’ and the ‘middling’ traditions can be associated with the degree of inclusiveness of these scenarios.3 That not only attendants to the feast but also slaves or hired professionals could be performers of iamboi appears as a real possibility. That the symposion was the ‘default’ occasion for the performance of iambos is by and large the current scholarly consensus.4 To be sure, many features of the ‘received iambos’ are suggestive of the symposion: its ostensibly personal nature, its length (say, between 20 and 200 lines), the address to named individuals, as well as occasional meta-sympotic references (recently studied by Kantzios).5 However, 2 See Gernet (1981), 13–47 (orig. pub. 1928) for an anthropological approach to ancient Greek feasts. Murray (1983) brought the symposion to historical and literary studies in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. The articles collected in Murray (1990a) and Slater (1991) sum up a wealth of approaches. See Murray (1990b), 7–11 for a survey of the various national and disciplinary traditions. Schmitt-Pantel raised important conceptual and methodological issues in the study of the systems of meals in the city, by stressing the need to avoid strong oppositions between sacred and profane, public and private; Schmitt-Pantel (1990); (1992). On the various types of occasions for ancient Greek commensality and conviviality, see Murray (1990b), 3–7; Stehle (1997), 214–15. 3 Morris (1996). See Kurke (2007) for a survey of archaic Greek poetry, including iamboi, that takes into account the generic and ideological positioning of the poetic ‘I’, and relates it to two notionally opposed venues of performance, the symposion and the agora. 4 Pellizer (1990), 180 summarizes the hypothesis: ‘almost all elegiac and iambic poetry from Archilochus onwards ( . . . ) Wnds its natural focus in the symposion of the hetaireia or the symposion of tyrants’. Ro¨sler (1980), 230 qualiWes this hypothesis as follows: ‘a general consideration of all possible social contexts and institutions compels us to see the symposion, not merely as one among many possibilities, but as the central place for the creation and performance of poetry. Strictly, this applies to that particular area of melic, elegiac, and iambic poetry which often makes direct and explicit reference to the sympotic situation.’ See Stehle (1997), 212–61 for the symposion as setting for the performance of poetry, with reservations about iambic poetry on p. 215 n. 11. Cf. Aloni (2006), 87. 5 Bowie (2002a), 37–40. See Kantzios (2005), 22–8 for a survey of references to sympotic setting in Archilochus, Semonides, Solon, and Hipponax. See D’Alessio
Public Performance of Iamboi
255
as Bartol mantains, ‘no surviving ancient testimony describes directly the circumstances of performance of literary iambus in the archaic period’.6 In fact, testimonies from later periods indicate other possibilities. One signiWcant hypothesis has been put forward by West, who suggests that iambos was a ‘traditional entertainment with some (perhaps forgotten) ritual basis’.7 In his view, this entertainment could be presented by solo performers in some areas (e.g. Ionian), or by a troupe or a chorus in others (e.g. Dorian). West associates these choruses with a series of performers on whom we have very little information: iambistai, deikelistai, phallophoroi, autokabdaloi, and phlyakes, which I discuss in section 5. A diVerent view is taken by Bartol, who led the way to the notion that ‘there was more than one type of occasion for the presentation of iambic poetry’.8 On the basis of Arist. Pol. 1336b20–3 (see sect. 3), Bartol argues that in the fourth century iambic poems were performed at public gatherings. Kantzios recently summarized scholarly views regarding the performance of iamboi in relation to their ritual function or lack thereof. Kantzios distinguishes between the ‘ritual model’ and the ‘sympotic model’.9 The ritual model connects archaic iamboi with the cults of Demeter and Dionysos, laying stress on the scurrilous character of the genre. In the sympotic model the archaic iambos plays no cultic role (according to Carey it had broken free from its ritual connection by the time of Archilochus),10 and is consequently not deWned by invective content. In spite of some simpliWcation, for example in the qualiWcation of the symposion as ‘secular’, which overlooks the religious aspects of the Greek symposion,11 Kantzios successfully outlines the two poles that dominate iambic scholarship. I would like to suggest an alternative to ‘ritual’ and ‘de-ritualized’, namely, that iamboi were a ‘performance framed by ritual’, that is to say, not directly playing a role in ritual, but not purely theatrical either. Accordingly, iamboi had a loose connection to their various performance contexts, with entertainment playing an important role. They (2004) and Calame (2004) for the problematics involved in self-referentiality as a means for reconstructing occasions of performance. 6 Bartol (1992a), 65. 7 West (1974), 27. 8 Bartol (1992a), 65. 9 Kantzios (2005), 12–20. 10 Carey (1986), 65. 11 Bartol (1992a), 66 n. 7.
256
The Performance of Iambos
could be performed and re-performed at festivals and competitions as well as on private or semi-private occasions (such as symposia). In this chapter I shall examine this proposition with particular attention to evidence for the performance of iamboi on occasions other than symposia (more than suYciently studied), namely religious festivals and mousikoi agones.
1. ARCHILOCHUS IN M OU S I KO I AGO N E S (HERACLIT. 42 DK) In a fragment from around 500 bce transmitted by Diogenes Laertius (9.1), Heraclitus pronounces an adverse judgement on Homer and Archilochus. The two poets deserve to be thrown out of the contests and beaten up:
…Åæ çÆŒ ¼Ø KŒ H Iªø KŒ ºº ŁÆØ ŒÆd ÞÆ Ç ŁÆØ ŒÆd æå ºå › ø (DL 9.1 ¼ 42 DK ¼ 30 Marcovich) He said that Homer deserved to be banished from the contests and Xogged, and Archilochus likewise.12
By Heraclitus’ time many of the poetic and musical performances that took place at local festivals were organized as competitions. There is evidence for musical contests at Delos, Delphi, Sparta, Brauron, Sikyon, Messene, Arcadia, and Athens before 500 bce.13 Musical contests were a well-established institution, providing the most natural referent for the word agones,14 which thus stands for mousikoi agones (ıØŒd IªH ), i.e. competitions in the Muses’ 12 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 59. 13 For musical contests before 500 bce see Herington (1985), 3–40; 161–6; Von Scheliha (1987) (published post mortem); Kotsidu (1991), 15–23. Comprehensive surveys can be found in reference works such as RE and DNP (Reisch (1894), Blume, Paulsen, and Schmidt (2002); the three editions of the OCD (1949, 1970, 1996) devote little or no attention to musical contests), and also in Reisch (1885); Barker (1990); Kotsidu (1991) 7–34; Be´lis (1999) 123–55. There seems to be no evidence for early musical contests in Asia Minor. For choral contests in classical Sicily, see Wilson (2007a). 14 Treu’s translation makes this reference explicit: ‘aus den musischen Agonen’ (1959, 125).
Public Performance of Iamboi
257
realm. Our fragment thus alludes to poetic competitions, practised all over the Greek world. However, although the fragment evokes poetic contests, the criticism of Homer and Archilochus is expressed in terms typical of the punishment of athletes. We learn from Herodotus (8.59) that beating athletes in the context of competition was not uncommon.15 Crowther and Frass, who have surveyed the practice of Xogging in education and military training as well as at agonistic festivals, link the punishment particularly to technical oVences by competing athletes.16 Although Xogging was apparently not absent from dramatic and musical contests in Hellenistic and Roman times,17 it seems that Heraclitus is taking a typically athletic type of punishment and applying it to poets. However, the verb ÞÆ Ç ŁÆØ, ‘to be Xogged’, carries not only athletic but also poetic allusions. The rhabdos (Þ ), ‘staV’, used by referees, trainers, or oYcials in charge of athletic competitions, often appears on vase paintings representing such competitions (hence the term ÞÆ ç æØ for festival oYcials).18 On the other hand, the word rhabdos was often perceived in antiquity as etymologically linked to rhapsodes (ÞÆłfiø , see Chapter 4, sect. 2), while the staV itself was essential to the iconography of professional performers of poetry without musical accompaniment.19 Thus, the verb could indicate that a form of punishment typically inXicted on athletes, in the context of competitions, and on pharmakoi, in religious contexts, should be applied to Homer and Archilochus. In addition, in three extant fragments (6.1; 10.2; 40.3) Hipponax refers to the practice of Xogging a pharmakos by the verb rhapizesthai, and the Ephesian Heraclitus may be alluding, if not to the Ephesian iambic poet, to an Ephesian practice. Of course, Heraclitus’ censure was not aimed at Homer’s and Archilochus’ participation in musical contests, but at contemporary 15 › ˚æ ŁØ æÆ Åªe Æ › /Œ ı r ‘‘t ¨ Ø Œº , K EØ IªHØ ƒ æ ÆØ Ø ÞÆ Ç ÆØ’’ (Hdt. 8.59). Cf. Herington (1985), 174 n. 33. Marcovich (1967), 151 suggests that ‘the KŒ ºº Ø, ‘‘to drive an actor from the stage’’ (almost a technical term, cf. LSJ, s.v., iv), was often accompanied by Xogging’. The only parallel for this seems to be Dem. 19.337. 16 Crowther and Frass (1998). 17 Crowther and Frass (1998), 62–4. 18 Crowther and Frass (1998), 65. 19 For the iconography of rhapsodes, see Shapiro (1992); Bundrick (2005), passim for classical Athens.
258
The Performance of Iambos
poets performing their work.20 The criticism ultimately seems to target the types of poetry that Homer and Archilochus represented.21 Although the two poets seem to stand for poetry in general, they are not introduced in the same way. On the contrary, ‘and Archilochus likewise’ (ŒÆd æå ºå › ø) seems to mark a hierarchy between them.22 Hence, Homer and Archilochus probably stand for diVerent types of poetry, each for the kind of compositions typically associated with him: Homer for epic (and perhaps also mock-heroic) poetry, and Archilochus for both elegy and iambos. It would be tempting to conclude that Archilochus stands for blame poetry whereas Homer stands for praise poetry. Archilochus’ reputation, however, was twofold, as we shall see in Chapter 10. To be sure, for Pindar Archilochus stood out as representative of both types (Chapter 10, sect. 1). Thus, Homer and Archilochus represent the broad spectrum of poetry that rhapsoidoi could perform. In Lavigne’s words, the two poets ‘embody the rhapsodic tradition’.23 From Heraclitus 42 DK it is possible to infer that Archilochus’ poems and probably the type of poetry that he represented, were a signiWcant constituent of the repertoire of musical contests by the beginning of the Wfth century bce.24 Together with the narrative elegy of mythological or local historical content postulated by Bowie,25 poems from the ‘received iambos’, especially military narratives in trochaic tetrameters, may well have been included in the rhapsode’s repertoire. These two are the types of poems with which Heraclitus’ own compositions competed with regards to sophia.26 To sum up, Heraclitus 42 DK indicates, by way of allusion, that at times iamboi were part of the repertoire at musikoi agones.27 The fact that in the Platonic dialogue Ion Socrates asks the rhapsode whether he is skilled in Homer only, or in Hesiod and Archilochus as well (
æ æd ˇæı Øe r j ŒÆd æd ˙ Ø ı ŒÆd æåغ åı; Pl. Ion 531a) perhaps supports the notion that Archilochus continued to be 20 Babut (1976), 476–7; Nagy (1990), 79. 21 Nagy (1990), 79. 22 Rather than an afterthought, as suggested by Marcovich (1967), 151. 23 Lavigne (2005), 27. 24 Nagy (1990), 25; Bartol (1992a); Lavigne (2005); (2008). 25 Bowie (1986); (2001b). 26 Lavigne (2005), 29–30. 27 For early iambos as part of the rhapsode’s repertoire see Herington (1985), 52–4; Ford (1988); Lavigne (2005), 22.
Public Performance of Iamboi
259
part of the rhapsodic repertoire well into the fourth century bce, in spite of the dialogue’s earlier dramatic date.28 The possibility that Archilochus himself competed at mousikoi agones was raised already in antiquity. Indeed, we have a late reference to his participation at a festival in honour of Demeter in Paros. The scholiast to Aristophanes’ Birds (1764) credits Archilochus with a victory by singing a hymn to Demeter (324W, on the question of whose authenticity see Chapter 10, sect. 1): ‘It seems that Archilochus was the Wrst to apply this refrain to himself after his victory in the contest for the hymn to Demeter in Paros’29 (Œ E b æå ºå K —æfiø ØŒÆ <fi ¼Æ> e ˜Å æ o (Æı fiH F KØ çøÅŒÆØ). But we cannot tell whether the scholiast is transmitting a tradition otherwise lost to us, or whether he is merely making or citing a conjecture (Œ E).
2 . IAMBOI I N MO U S I KO I AGO N E S (PL . LG. 9 3 5 E ) In my discussion in Chapter 8 of the possibility that iamboi were a melic genre I came to the conclusion that Plato, Laws 935e could not make a contribution to the issue. However, the reading of the passage that I proposed has implications for the public performances of iamboi. The passage is worth citing again: ØÅ fi B c Œøfiø Æ X Ø N ø j ıH ºfiø Æ c K ø º ªfiø NŒ Ø, ŁıfiH ¼ ı ŁıF, ÅÆH ÅÆ H ºØ H Œøfiø E Ka Ø I ØŁfi B, f IŁºŁ Æ K æª Ø KŒ B åæÆ e ÆæÆ ÆPŁÅ æ , j ÇÅØFŁÆØ ÆE æØd ƒ æÆE F Ł F y i Iªg fi q. A poet of comedy or of any of the iamboi or of the Muses’ song must not be allowed to ridicule any of the citizens in any way, neither in narration nor in impersonation, neither with nor without anger. If anyone ever disobeys, the competition oYcials must drive him away altogether from the country that very day, or be Wned three minae, dedicated to the god whose contest is being held.
28 Nagy (1990), 25. 29 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 287. See also Archil. 251W (with Ch. 10, sect. 3), although the festival mentioned by the Mnesiepes Inscription need not be competitive.
260
The Performance of Iambos
This passage of the Laws suggests that Plato envisaged the performance of iamboi in a public context similar to that in which comedy would be performed: at festival competitions.30 To be sure, Plato makes an explicit, generic reference to an agon, ‘contest’, held in honour of a god ( F Ł F y i Iªg fi q). Moreover, he mentions the athlothetai, who are not only the oYcials in charge of musical contests in Plato’s city (Lg. 764c5, 835a2), but also the historical Athenian oYcials responsible for the Panathenaic festival.31 The context of performance referred to is therefore a competition organized by the city in honour of a god. Although poets’ works are regulated, the poets themselves are not a priori banished from the ideal city. If they happened to oVend, they could be forced to leave town. Otherwise, a Wne was to be paid, not to the victim of ridicule but to the temple of the god honoured at the festival. Thus, the oVence of a citizen is taken as a matter of public concern. As we have seen in the previous section, Heraclit. 42 DK and Plato’s Ion indicate that Archilochus’ poems were part of the rhapsodic repertoire performed in competition. Indeed, musical and poetic contests were a most prominent occasion for the performance of songs and poems in archaic and classical Greece. Professional rhapsoidoi, kitharoidoi, and auloidoi travelled the Greek world to make a living out of the performance of poetry. Although Plato’s passage is not a direct witness for the historical performance of iamboi at religious festivals, he seems to be taking such performances for granted. In eVect, in the regulations for the ideal city of the Laws, Plato forbids poets to ridicule any citizen through comedy, iamboi, and melic song, performed in the context of festival competitions. This is consistent with his authoritative prescriptions of what should and should not be performed at festivals in his Cretan city, and who would be allowed to compose songs. How far is Plato’s prohibition removed from real, historical Athens? In Chapter 11, section 1, I shall return to the perception of iambic poetry in relation to the Athenian law against slander.
30 On the musical contests of the Laws, see Ford (2002), 282–6. 31 IG I2 302 (415 bce), 304 (410/9 bce); IG II2 212 (347/6 bce), 380 (320/19 bce).
Public Performance of Iamboi
261
3 . WATCH I NG I A MB O I I N T H E AT R E S ( A RI S T. POL. 1 3 3 6 b ) We Wnd further support for the possibility of public performances of iamboi in Aristotle’s Politics, in a section dealing with the education of children (1336b). Aristotle says that children should not be exposed to aischrologia, ‘verbal obscenity’, nor spend time with slaves, nor be exposed to obscenity in the visual arts. He allows, however, for two exceptions to aischrologia: ritual obscenity and the representation of iamboi and comedy. K d b e ºª Ø Ø H Ø ø Kæ Ç , çÆ æe ‹ Ø ŒÆd e Ł øæ E j ªæÆça j º ªı IåÆ KØ ºb b s ø E ¼æåıØ ÅŁ, ¼ªÆºÆ ªæÆç, rÆØ Ø ø æ ø ÅØ, N c Ææ ØØ Ł E
Ø Ø x ŒÆd e øŁÆe I øØ › æe b Ø Iç ÅØ › f c ºØŒ Æ å Æ [ Ø] c ƒŒıÅ ŒÆd bæ Æ H ŒÆd
Œø ŒÆd ªıÆØŒH Øƺç E f Ł f b ø æı h N ø h Œøfiø Æ Ł Æ a Ł , æd j c ºØŒ Æ º øØ K fi w ŒÆd ŒÆ ÆŒº ø æ Ø ŒØø E XÅ ŒÆd ŁÅ, ŒÆd B Ie H Ø ø ªØªÅ º Å IÆŁ E ÆØ Æ Ø Ø ø. If the use of indecent language is thus to be proscribed, it is obvious that we must also prevent the exhibition of indecent pictures and the performance of indecent plays (logoi). It should therefore be the duty of the government to prohibit all statuary and painting which portrays any sort of indecent action. An exception may, however, be made for the festivals of deities where even the use of scurrility is licensed by the law. (But here, we may note, the law also allows men who have reached a proper maturity to acquit their wives and children from attendance by attending in person themselves.) The seeing of iamboi or comedies should be forbidden to young persons by the legislator, until they have reached the age when they are allowed to share with the older men in the right of reclining and taking wine at the common tables. By that time their education will have made them all immune from the evil eVects of such performances.32
I referred to this passage in Chapter 3, as testimony to Aristotle’s use of the term iambos for a type of public performance. What interests us here is precisely the type of occasion that he envisaged for the performance of iamboi. 32 Translated by Barker (1946), 330. Barker has ‘mimes’ instead of ‘iamboi’.
262
The Performance of Iambos
In this passage Aristotle moves from ritual obscenity and mockery ( øŁÆ ), in which one takes part when honouring a god ( Øƺç E f Ł ), to the staged performance of obscenity, in which one takes part as a spectator (Ł Æ Æ ). The occasions involved in the two are of course extremely diVerent. Whereas tothasmos belongs to actual ritual,33 comedy and iamboi are watched in the broad scope of ritual without being perceived as ritual (i.e. religiously eVective) acts. Indeed, it is implied that iamboi were performed on occasions similar to those on which comedy was performed: at religious festivals, possibly in a competitive context. Although Aristotle, like Plato, Wnds something harmful in both comedy and iamboi, he believes that education can overcome the harm. Therefore he simply puts limits on the age of the spectators, unlike Plato, who establishes an overall restriction in the content of poetry.34 Indeed, Aristotle links allowing young people to become spectators of iamboi and comedy to the age at which they participate in the city’s common meals (that age is not speciWed in the Politics). Common meals were characteristic of Crete and Sparta, as well as of several civic and religious associations in ancient Greece.35 Aristotle himself refers to the Cretan and Spartan custom, and he adopted the institution for his ideal city (Pol. 1265b, 1329b–1331a). SchmittPantel, who has made an extensive study of the literary, iconographic, and archaeological evidence for ancient Greek shared meals, shows the role of participation in syssitia in qualifying adult males as citizens in both Crete and Sparta.36 The passage of young males to adulthood was signalled by full participation in the syssitia, that is to say, not only by presence, but by the right to have access to food and wine. By mentioning the age at which young people are allowed to recline (ŒÆ ŒºØØ) and drink wine (ŁÅ) Aristotle adopts the notion that becoming a citizen is marked by access to commensality and conviviality. Therefore, I am inclined to see the passage as a reference to age, although it may be argued that performance of iamboi at common meals is indirectly implied. 33 Cf. Ar. V. 1360–9, with further references in Rusten (1977). See also Csapo (2007), 4–7. 34 Kraut (1997), 165. 35 Schmitt-Pantel (1992), 238–42. 36 Schmitt-Pantel (1992), 76–8.
Public Performance of Iamboi
263
Aristotle’s passage, then, indicates that iamboi were conceived as a genre performed in public. The performance context implied is most probably the same as for comedies, namely, religious festivals, perhaps competitive ones. Such a scenario is consistent with the evidence discussed in the initial sections of this chapter. In addition, the testimony may also entail symposion-like occasions, perhaps on a wider scale, consistent with the general type of occasion suggested for the performance of iamboi based on Archilochus fr. 215W, namely, that of commensality and conviviality.
4. RHAPSODIC PERFORMANCES OF I A M B OI (ATH. 620C) Athenaeus transmits a number of testimonies on the public performance of iamboi. A long section on names of songs (616e–620a) is followed by a passage on the performance of the works of ‘classical’ Greek poets by professional performers. ‹ Ø KŒÆºF ƒ ÞÆłfiød ŒÆd ˇÅæØ Æd æØ ŒºB YæÅŒ K fiH æd +æH. f b F ˇÅæØ a OÆÇı æH N a ŁÆ æÆ ÆæªÆª ˜Å æØ › *ƺÅæ . +ÆÆغø b K fiH æd ÅØå æı ŒÆd ºfiøÅŁBÆ çÅØ P a ˇæı, Iººa ŒÆd a ˙ Ø ı ŒÆd æåغ åı, Ø b Øæı ŒÆd *øŒıº ı. ˚ºÆæå K fiH æ æfiø æd ˆæ çø ‘‘ a æåغ åı, çÅ , [›] Øø Å › ˘ÆŒŁØ K E Ł æØ Kd çæı ŒÆŁ KæÆłfi Ø.’’ ¸ıÆ Æ K fiH æ fiø æd Æ ØH Æ øÆ e ÞÆłfiøe ºª Ø K ÆE Ø H Øø ı
Øa N ø Œæ ŁÆØ. f ¯ Œºı ˚ÆŁÆæf KæÆłfiÅ ˇºı ÆØ ˚º Å › ÞÆłfiø , u çÅØ ˜ØŒÆ Ææå K fiH ˇºıØŒfiH ø K æ fiø æd H º æı æH K º Ææ fi Æ çÅd K fiH ªºfiø Ł æfiø Œæ ÆŁÆØ ˙ ªÅ Æ e Œøfiøe a ˙ Ø ı, ¯æ çÆ b a ˇæı. (Ath. 620c) That the rhapsodists were also called Homerists is stated by Aristocles in his work On Choruses. The persons who are called Homerists to-day were Wrst introduced into the theatres by Demetrius of Phalerum. Chamaeleon, in his treatise On Stesichorus, says, too, that not merely the poems of Homer were chanted but also those of Hesiod and Archilochus, and even those of Mimnermus and Phocylides. Clearchus, in the Wrst of his
264
The Performance of Iambos
two books On Riddles, says: ‘Simonides of Zacynthus, seated on a stool, used to rhapsodize the poems of Archilochus in the theatres.’ Again, Lysanias, in the Wrst book of his work On the Iambic Poets, says that the rhapsodist Mnasion used at public performances to act some of the iambic poems of Simonides. And the rhapsodist Cleomenes recited at Olympia the Rites of PuriWcation by Empedocles, as Dicaearchus says in his Olympic Festival. Jason, too, says in the third book of his work On the Divine Honours to Alexander that the comedian Hegesias acted the poems of Hesiod in the great theatre at Alexandria, while Hermophantus acted those of Homer.37
The passage as a whole deals with rhapsodic performance. Three points support the notion that iamboi were part of the rhapsodes’ repertoire: Wrst, Chamaeleon’s claim that Archilochus’ poems were sung to music beside the most prominent rhapsodic texts, those of Homer and Hesiod; second, Clearchos’ statement about the rhapsodic performance of Archilochus’ poems in theatres; third, Lysanias’ reference to public performances of Semonides’ iamboi by the rhapsode Mnasion. Let us look into each of these references. Chamaeleon of Heraclea Pontica was a Peripatetic active at the end of the fourth century bce. He wrote works on old comedy, on satyr plays, and several treatises on lyric poets such as Stesichorus, Sappho, Anacreon, Simonides, and Pindar.38 In his monograph on Stesichorus he probably dealt with the musical aspect of his poetry. The assertion that not only Homer, but also Hesiod, Archilochus, Mimnermus, and Phocylides were sung to music has unfortunately no temporal indication. It may refer to the period in which those poets were active, or to the re-performance of their works by professionals in the Wfth and fourth centuries bce. As we have seen in Chapter 8, it is possible to claim that Archilochus’ elegiac, epodic, and tetrameter poems were chanted to instrumental accompaniment or even sung. Although there is no explicit reference to iamboi in this quotation, the possibility that Chamaeleon’s statement applies to some of Archilochus’ iamboi cannot be ruled out. 37 Translated by Gulick (1955), vol. 6, 341. 38 RE s.v. ‘Chamaeleon’; DNP s.v. ‘Chamaeleon’. Chamaeleon’s fragments are collected and studied by SteVen (1964); Wehrli (1967), vol. 9 and Giordano (1977).
Public Performance of Iamboi
265
Clearchus of Soli (Cyprus) was a pupil of Aristotle active between 300 and 250 bce.39 He is known as the author of On Riddles ( æd ˆæ çø) in two books. The work must have had a special interest in various kinds of performances, as it contains references to kitharists, actors of mime, and entertainers (Ath. 452f–454f). Clearchus mentions Simonides of Zacynthos, who is otherwise unknown. Probably a professional performer, Simonides included Archilochus’ poems in his repertoire. This is clearly a case of re-performance of either elegy or iamboi or both. The location mentioned, theatres, implies a public performance before a wide audience. As Lavigne points out, the plural ‘theatres’, together with the imperfect of the verb rhapsodein, suggests that this was an itinerant performer who travelled about performing the poems.40 One detail of the re-performance is unusual, namely, that Simonides performed while seated on a stool. As far as visual evidence goes, rhapsodes, as well as auloidoi and kitharoidoi, used to perform standing.41 Thus, in his manner of performance Simonides of Zacynthos may have adopted some of the impersonating strategies of actors. Lysanias (see Chapter 2, sect. 1 and Chapter 4, sect. 1) was originally from Cyrene, home of Callimachus and Eratosthenes. He was probably Eratosthenes’ teacher42 and may have belonged to Callimachus’ generation. Hence he was most probably active in the third century bce.43 Hints of his lexicographical work can be found in the scholia to Homer and Euripides44 and his contribution to Hellenistic scholarship may have been more important than is usually acknowledged.45 Therefore, although Lysanias is later than Chamaeleon and Clearchos, he is certainly the one with the best credentials as a scholar. His On the Iambic Poets, in at least two books, is unfortunately lost,
39 RE s.v. ‘Klearchos von Soloi’; Stein (1931). The title of the work quoted by Athenaeus reads æd ªæÆçH in the codex Marcianus, but this was emended by Casaubon into æd ˆæ çø. 40 Lavigne (2005), 25. 41 One may speculate that by reciting seated the rhapsode marked his piece as distinct from the usual repertoire, or even undigniWed, as from a lower genre. It is tempting to connect this to Demeter’s encounter with Iambe in the Homeric Hymn, where Iambe oVers the goddess a stool. 42 Suid. s.v. ¯ æÆ ŁÅ. 43 3rd cent. bce (cf. DNP s.v. ‘Lysanias’) rather than 2nd cent. bce (as in OCD3 s.v. ‘Lysanias’). 44 Schol. Hom. Il. 9.378, 16.558, 21.262; Schol. Eur. Andr. 10; cf. Ath. 504b. 45 See RE s.v. ‘Lysanias’.
266
The Performance of Iambos
except for three references by Athenaeus (304b, 504b, 620c). It seems that performance was one of the aspects that interested Lysanias. Unfortunately, nothing is known about Mnasion that could help us date him or characterize his work. He must have been a professional rhapsode who knew the actor’s art as well (Œæ ŁÆØ). His public performances (K ÆE Ø) included some iamboi of Semonides (this is the only explicit reference to iamboi in Athenaeus’ passage). Simonides is in all probability Semonides of Amorgos. His misogynistic piece on women (fr. 7W), the longest iambic fragment that has come down to us, provides a possible example of the character and length of a piece for public presentation.46 To sum up, evidence from the late fourth and early third century suggests that some iamboi were indeed part of the rhapsodes’ repertoire, and that they were delivered at public performances, in theatres, possibly at festivals, though not necessarily in competition. The information collected by Athenaeus in a single passage may go back to the fourth century bce. Together with the passages by Heraclitus, Plato, and Aristotle discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter, these testimonies suggest that some iamboi by the archaic poets were occasionally part of the repertoire of professional rhapsodes at least from 500 bce onwards. This has an important implication for the transmission of the archaic iamboi. Indeed, if iamboi were part of the repertoire of professional rhapsodes, these artists may have played a role in the transmission of iambic poetry, not only orally, but also in written form, in the same way that troupes of professional actors were partly responsible for the survival of many dramatic texts.
5 . IA M B I STAI AS PERFORME RS OF I A M B O I (ATH. 181C) A number of passages in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistai are connected to the performance of iamboi. The Wrst one (181c) is our only evidence 46 Osborne (2001), however, suggests that the original poem was intended for sympotic performance.
Public Performance of Iamboi
267
of the term iambistai (NÆ Ø Æ ), ‘iambists’. The second contains a quotation of Semus of Delos, a second-century bce author who says that a type of performer called autokabdaloi were later called iamboi. The third passage, a citation of Sosibius of Sparta (3rd cent. bce), gives further details about the autokabdaloi, among other local performers. These testimonies, usually discussed in the context of the pre-literary origins of Greek drama,47 are exceptional in the history of Greek iambos in that they suggest that the name of the literary genre was transferred from performance to performers. ƒ b º ª Ø ¸ÆŒøØ Æ , çÅd › $ ÆØ, K æÆªØ åæE fi q. ŒÆŁ ºı b Øçæ q ıØŒc Ææa E ‚ººÅØ, H b ŁÅÆ ø f ˜ØıØÆŒf åæf ŒÆd f ŒıŒº ı æ Ø ø, ıæÆŒ ø b f NÆ Ø , ¼ººø ¼ºº Ø. (Ath. 181c ¼ FGrH 566 F 140) According to Timaeus, the so-called Lakonistai (‘Sparta-imitators’) sung in rectangular choruses. Greek music was generally diverse, given that the Athenians preferred Dionysiac and cyclic choruses, the Syracusans preferred iambists, and other peoples preferred other things.48
After a reference to the historian Timaeus of Tauromenium (c.350– 260 bce)49 as a source of information for the performers called lakonistai, a contrast is made between Athenian preference for ‘Dionysiac and cyclic choruses’,50 i.e. dramatic, dithyrambic, and cyclic choruses, and the Syracusan preference for the iambistai. Given that Timaeus was from Tauromenium in Sicily and his work is rich in details of ethnographic and cultural interest, it is indeed quite possible that he is the source for the comment on the Syracusans’ preference for the iambists. The iambistai are not mentioned elsewhere. Comparison with other nomina agentis related to the performance of poetry or song,
47 For a thorough discussion of these passages in the context of the origins of Greek comedy see DTC2 132–62. Brown (1997), 31–7 examines the passage as evidence for the ritual origins of iamboi. 48 Translated by Olson (2006), vol. 2, 401. Olson gives ‘iambic poets’ instead of ‘iambists’. 49 OCD3 s.v. ‘Timaeus (2)’. 50 I take the ŒÆ of f ˜ØıØÆŒf åæf ŒÆd f ŒıŒº ı as copulative. The ŒÆ can also be taken as explanatory (‘the Dionysiac, namely the cyclic choruses’). On the distinction between dithyramb and cyclic chorus, see Fearn (2007), 163–225; Wilson (2007b), 167–9.
268
The Performance of Iambos
such as paianistes (ÆØÆØ ) and homeristes ( ˇÅæØ ), suggests that iambistes (NÆ Ø ) is also a type of performer. The plural ‘iambists’ is probably a collective reference to such a type, in the same way as Homeristai, rather than to a choral performance. What the exact relationship is between iambists and iamboi remains a matter of conjecture. Given that the term iambos is attested for a rhythm, a type of melody, and a literary genre (Chapter 7), the best rendition of the term is ‘performer of iamboi’ in a generic sense. However, the connection with iambos as a genre is not explicit. It has been proposed that the iambists are connected with the iamboi mentioned by Epicharmus (fr. 77, see Chapter 7, sect. 4), who was himself a native of Sicily. Olivieri suggested that the iambistai were the practitioners of a literary genre invented by Aristoxenus of Selinus, and that they were probably iambographers.51 This seems highly improbable. Athenaeus is not speaking about authors but about performers, whereas for composers of iamboi one would expect the words NÆ Ø or NÆ ªæç. West, on the other hand, suggests that the iambistai were dancers: ‘their iambi seemed to correspond in function to the Athenian Dithyramb’.52 However, there is no indication that Athenaeus saw a close correspondence in nature or function between the dithyramb and the performances of the iambistai. On the contrary, he was contrasting preferences in general, and ‘other people prefer other things’ (¼ººø ¼ºº Ø) suggests that the list is an open one.53 Since Athenaeus is speaking about mousike, a general term including song, poetry, dance, and drama, the preferences in question may have in common their public or institutional character, that is, they were performed at festivals organized and funded by cities or sanctuaries. In fact, the contrast with the ‘Dionysiac and cyclic choruses’ suggests a religious or civic context. The iambistai may have given performances in which they recited or even sang poems termed iamboi. Most of what can be said about the Syracusan iambistai is no more than speculation. Athenaeus gives no source for his statement, and if the institution is as old as the Athenian ones, he does not make this 51 Olivieri (1946), 67. 52 West (1974), 35. Cf. Brown (1997), 38. 53 The unfortunate omission of ¼ººø ¼ºº Ø in Bartol (1993a), 128, T 212, reinforces the impression of a parallel.
Public Performance of Iamboi
269
explicit. If the source is Timaeus, the iambists could be pre-Hellenistic performers of iamboi. Further on local nomenclature for entertainers, Athenaeus quotes Semus of Delos (2nd cent. bce, FGrH 394). In his book On Paeans ( æd —ÆØø) Semus explains the diVerence between various kinds of performers: autokabdaloi (improvisers), ithyphalloi54 (wearers of erect phalloi), and phallophoroi (phallos-carriers). Semus explains that one of these groups, the autokabdaloi, were ‘later called iamboi, themselves and their poems’. Although only the Wrst few lines of this testimony are relevant for our purpose, since the terms are sometimes mistaken as synonymous, it is worth our while to look into the whole passage. B › ˜ºØ K fiH æd —ÆØø ‘ƒ ÆP Œ ƺØ, çÅ , ŒÆº Ø K çÆøØ ŒØ
fiH åÅ55 KæÆØ Þ Ø. o æ b YÆ Ø TŁÅÆ ÆP ŒÆd a ØÆ Æ ÆP H. ƒ b NŁçƺºØ, çÅ , ŒÆº Ø æø EÆ Łı ø åıØ ŒÆd K çø ÆØ, å ØæEÆ IŁØa å åØ HØ b åæH ÆØ º ŒØ ŒÆd æØÇø ÆØ ÆæÆ E ŒÆº ÆP f åæØ H çıæH. تfi B b Øa F ıºH N ºŁ , ‹ Æ ŒÆ a Å c Oæå æÆ ªø ÆØ, KØ æçıØ N e ŁÆ æ ºª Iª , Pæıåøæ Æ Ø E fiH Ł fiH KŁº Ø ªaæ OæŁe Kçıø56 Øa ı Æ Ç Ø. ƒ b çƺºç æØ, çÅ , æø E b P ºÆ ıØ, æŒ Ø K (溺ı æØ ØŁ Ø ŒÆd ÆØæø Kø ı KØ Ł ÆØ çÆ Æf Yø ŒÆd ŒØ
F ŒÆıŒÆ æØ ºÅØ Æææå ÆØ Q b KŒ Ææ ı, Q b ŒÆ a Æ a ŁæÆ, Æ K ÞıŁfiH ŒÆd ºª , ´Œå , FÆ IªºÆ Ç , ±ºF ÞıŁe å ÆN ºfiø º Ø, ŒÆØ, IÆæŁ ı , h Ø ÆE æ Œ åæÅÆ fiTÆEØ, Iºº IŒæÆ ŒÆ æå e o. 54 Cf. Cratin. fr. 14 K. 55 åÅ A, Å Capps, ÆP åÅ Casaubonus. 56 Kçıæø AE, Kçıø Meineke.
270
The Performance of Iambos
r Æ æ æå 57 K ŁÆÇ R æºØ , Å b æÆ
› b çƺºç æ NŁf Æ Çø ŒÆ ÆÆŁ d ÆNŁºfiø.’ (Ath. 622a–d ¼ FGrH 396 F 24) Semus of Delos in his work On Paeans says: The autokabdaloi, as they were called, recited their pieces standing, wearing wreaths of ivy. Later they were named iamboi, as were also their poems. The so-called ithyphalloi, he says, have a mask representing drunken men, and wear wreaths and coloured sleeves; their tunics have white stripes and are belted with a fancy apron which covers them down to the ankles. After entering the portal in silence, when they reach the centre of the orchestra, they turn toward the audience and recite: ‘Give way, give way! Make room for the god! For the god wishes to march through your midst, uplifted to the point of bursting’. But the phallophoroi, he says, do not use a mask, but binding on their heads a bonnet of tufted thyme and holly, they place on top of this a thick wreath of violets and ivy; wrapped in thick mantles they come in, some by the side-entrance, others by the middle doors, marching in step and reciting: ‘To thee, Bacchus, we raise this glorifying song, pouring forth a simple measure in varied melody—a song new and virginal, in no wise used in earlier days; no, undeWled is the hymn we consecrate.’ They would then run forward and jeer at any one they picked out; they did this standing still. But the man who carried the phallus-pole kept marching straight on, smeared with soot.58
The ithyphalloi and phallophoroi appear as a very diVerent type of performer from the autokabdaloi, and, unlike the latter, they are not given an explicit connection to Greek iambos.59 The performances of the ithyphalloi and phallophoroi seem to be, as Webster suggests, a parody of a ceremony rather than a dramatic performance.60 The inclusion of the word phallos in their names and Aristotle’s statement that comedy sprang from a çƺºØŒ have inspired some scholars to suggest a connection to the origins of comedy.61 Others, however, remain sceptical about this link,62 or at least about the possibility of
57 æ æå CE. 58 Translated by Gulick (1955), vol. 6, 351–5. 59 The phallophoroi recite an invocation to Bacchus that is iambic in metre. Their abuse of the audience may have had a ritual root but our passage does not link it to iamboi. 60 DTC2 140. 61 Arist. Po. 1449a; cf. DTC2 134–44; E. Wu¨st, RE s.v. ‘Mimos’. 62 DTC2 141–51; OCD3 s.v. ‘Comedy, Greece, Origins of ’ (Dover).
Public Performance of Iamboi
271
proving it,63 particularly because these performances may well themselves have been inXuenced by literary comedy.64 For our purpose only the autokabdaloi are relevant. According to Semus, their performance consisted in the delivery of speeches (KæÆØ Þ Ø), probably improvised compositions in verse (ØÆ Æ). They did this ‘slowly’ or ‘at close quarters’ (åÅ), or, if we prefer Capps’s emendation, ‘standing’ ( Å).65 Unlike the ithyphalloi and phallophoroi, the autokabdaloi wore neither mask nor costume, but a simple ivy-crown; again unlike the phallophoroi, there is no allusion to their abusing the audience. Indeed, the autokabdaloi’s performance looks less ceremonial than that of the other two. Of particular interest is Semus’ comment that later (o æ) the autokabdaloi ‘were called iamboi, themselves and their poems’. Thus, iamboi was not their traditional name; the autokabdaloi are the forerunners of the iamboi and not the other way round. We know only one instance of the term iambos being applied to a person: Dionysius Iambos, the third-century bce grammarian who was a teacher of Aristophanes of Byzantium. However, we do not know how he got his name.66 Nor for the autokabdaloi do we know when and why the terminology shift occurred. We can conjecture that it was because their performances, consisting in the delivery of speeches (Þ Ø) in metre (ØÆ Æ), were perceived as similar enough to iamboi as a performance genre, or because their repertoire involved mainly iambic poetry. It is striking that it was not the phallic, Dionysiac, abusive (cf. K ŁÆÇ) performances of ithyphalloi and phallophoroi that attracted the name iamboi, but the more restrained,67 less akin to ritual, performances of the autokabdaloi. As to the region where the autokabdaloi/iamboi might have been active, Semus does not say anything. Although he locates the phlyakes in Sicily, the autokabdaloi/
63 Handley (1985), 363. 64 DTC2 133–44; Handley (1985), 363; cf. OCD3 s.v. ‘Comedy, Greece, Origins of ’ (Dover). 65 LSJ s.v. 66 Cf. DNP s.v. ‘Dionysios’ 15. 67 Both MS åÅ and Capps’s Å contrast the movement of the autokabdaloi with that of the ithyphalloi and phallophoroi, as well as their interaction with the audience.
272
The Performance of Iambos
iamboi do not appear here to be connected to a Sicilian tradition in the way that the iambists were in our previous testimony. Semus’ testimony suggests the possibility that the term iamboi was used at a certain point and place for both performances and performers, as the term mimoi (EØ) was used for both mime and mime-actors. Furthermore, Semus’ iamboi might be similar to the iambistai mentioned earlier by Athenaeus. Both types could have emerged in the late fourth or early third century bce, when guilds of artists organized themselves and travelled the Greek world to gain their living by providing entertainment at festivals.68 Like actors of mime, these types of performer were probably never accepted by the guild of artists of Dionysos (Dionysiakoi Technitai, attested from the third century bce);69 they might have belonged to minor, probably local associations of professional performers. The type of the autokabdalos is mentioned earlier by Athenaeus in a quotation from Sosibius, a historian active in the mid-third century bce who had a special interest in the traditions and institutions of his native Sparta.70 Ææa b ¸ÆŒ ÆØ Ø ŒøØŒB ÆØØA q Ø æ ƺÆØ , u çÅØ ø Ø, PŒ ¼ªÆ ıÆE, – c ŒI Ø e ºØ e B æ Å ÆØøŒÅ. KØ E ªæ Ø K P º E fi B º Ø Œº ØÆ OæÆ j ØŒe NÆ æe ØÆı d ºª Æ, ‰ @º Ø K ÆæƪæØÇfi Å Øa ø Ææ ÅØ ( . . . ) KŒÆºF ƒ Ø c ØÆ Å ÆØØa Ææa E ¸ŒøØ ØŒÅºØ Æ ,71 ‰ ¼ Ø Œ ıØf Yfi Å ŒÆd ØÅ . F b Yı H ØŒÅºØ H ººÆd ŒÆ a ı Nd æŪæ ÆØ. ØŒıØØ b ªaæ çƺºç æı ÆP f ŒÆºFØ, ¼ººØ72 ÆP ŒÆ ºı, Q b çºÆŒÆ, ‰
68 Cf. Csapo and Slater (1995), 221–4, 239–42; Lightfoot (2002). Given the reference to the ithyphalloi performing in the orchestra and the phallophoroi coming from the parodos, could they have performed in the Łı ºØŒd IªH , i.e. those performed in the orchestra, which were not only musical competitions but also included drama? 69 Lightfoot (2002), 212. 70 Most of Sosibius’ fragments come from æd H K ¸ÆŒ Æ Ø ŁıØH. His æd ºŒA shows his interest in local traditions of poetry (cf. RE s.v. and OCD3 s.v.). 71 ØŒÅºØ Æ A, ØŒÅºØ Æ E. cf. Schol. AR I.745. 72 The word ¼ººØ may be corrupt, as it appears in a list of speciWc geographical references. Bowie suggests e.g. æå EØ or ØŒ º . The latter would indicate a connection with the Syracusan iambistai.
Public Performance of Iamboi
273
ƺ , çØ a b ƒ ºº ¨Å ÆEØ b ŒÆd a ººa N ø OÇ Ø NøŁ
KŁ º . (Ath. 621d–f ¼ FGrH 595 F 10) Among the Lacedaemonians there was an ancient variety of comic pastime, as Sosibius says, not taken very seriously, because in such matters also Sparta follows simplicity. In simple language one would imitate persons stealing fruit, or a foreign doctor talking in the manner portrayed by Alexis in The Woman who drank Belladonna, as follows ( . . . ). Those who pursued this kind of pastime among the Laconians were called deikelistai, or, as one may say in other words, maskers and mummers. But there are many local terms for the type known as deikelistai. The people of Sicyon, for example, call them phallus-bearers, others, autokabdaloi, still others, phlyakes (so the Italians), while the majority call them sophists; but Thebans, who are in the habit of having special names of their own for most things, call them volunteers.73
Athenaeus gives no details as to the speciWc source of the Sosibius citation describing an old form of a Spartan comic entertainment.74 It is not clear either how far the material in this section is drawn from Sosibius. Once the reference to Sparta is Wnished, it may go on to use Semus or some other source. The Spartan entertainment in question involves imitation in ordinary diction. Sosibius mentions two examples: people stealing fruit and a foreign doctor who speaks Doric. These are in fact stock characters common to a number of performances.75 Indeed, the stealing motif appears in one of Epicharmus’ plays (fr. 239 Austin), in Aristophanes (Eq. 418), and was probably part of the repertoire of the performers depicted as padded dancers on a Corinthian vase of the early sixth century bce.76 As for the type of the foreign doctor, he appears in the comic poets Crates (fr. 41) and Alcaeus (fr. 10). It is noteworthy that Sosibius illustrates the foreign doctor’s diction with a passage from a fourth-century Attic comic poet, Alexis. Entertainments of this sort probably remained sub-literary, and Sosibius or Athenaeus probably had no access to written examples. 73 Translated by Gulick (1955), vol. 6, 349–51. 74 Jacoby edits this as the only known fragment from a book æd H ØźH K ¸ÆŒøØŒfi B. This is based on the Suda, which seems to be drawing information from Athenaeus’ passage (cf. FGrH 595). 75 DTC 2 136 (and n. 6) and 171. 76 DTC 2 171 and n. 41. Pollux (iv.104) mentions a Laconian dance that imitates men caught stealing meat.
274
The Performance of Iambos
The type known in Sparta as deikelistai had a variety of names in diVerent regions: phallophoroi in Sicyon, audokabdaloi,77 phlyakes in Italy,78 ethelontai (KŁ º Æ ), ‘volunteers’, in Thebes, sophists in most places.79 As we have seen in Semus’ testimony, the performances in question were rather diverse. Why then refer to them as varieties of the same type ( r H ØŒÅºØ H)? Athenaeus explains the term deikelistai as stage or mask-makers (Œ ıØ ) and imitators or impersonators (ØÅ Æ ). Similarly, Plutarch glosses the Doric ،ź، Æ , saying that ‘so the Spartans call the mimes’ (o ø b ¸ÆŒ ÆØ ØØ f ı ŒÆºFØ, Plu. Ages. 21).80 Thus in the second century ce this kind of performer was identiWed as actors of mime. Indeed, the group of the deikelistai under which Sosibius subsumes the autokabdaloi has also been claimed as a representative of the popular, pre-literary mime.81 Mime originated in Sicily and its Wrst attested literary exponents composed (in Doric) simple plots with characters similar to those described by Sosibius.82 If phallophoroi and ithyphalloi are local varieties of entertainers, possibly performers of mime, what they have in common with Semus’ autokabdaloi/iamboi is their professional status and their being a lowranking group of entertainers in a comic mode.83 Thus, we could refer to all these various performances by the generic ‘mime’, a term, in Hunter’s words, ‘used by modern scholars to cover a very wide range of ancient performances, from solo singers to ‘‘playlets’’ performed by a small group of ‘‘actors’’, almost anything in fact which does not Wt the classical categories of tragedy, satyr drama, and comedy’.84
77 Hsch. s.v. ÆP Œ ÆºÆ ÆP åØÆ; cf. Eupolis, Maricas, Kock i. 312. 78 Taplin (1993) has convincingly argued that the phlyakes, a local variety of drama in Sicily, has no connection with the so-called phlyakes vases that date from around 400–330 bce. The vases are also earlier than Rhinthon’s Phlyakes-poems. 79 A term also applied to poets or singers (cf. Pind. I. 5.28; [Eur.], Rh. 924; Cratinus, Archilochoi fr. 2). 80 Cf. EM: ˜ ØŒ ºØ Æ : ØÅ Æd Ææa ¸ŒøØ. 81 Reich (1903), 277–9; Bonaria (1988), 1359–60. 82 Wu¨st, RE s.v. ‘Mimos’, prefers a link with comedy. 83 These types of performers were part of festivals, at least on the fringes, but they were not members of the guilds of technitai (Lightfoot (2002), 212). 84 Hunter (2002), 196.
Public Performance of Iamboi
275
It is time to bring all the pieces of evidence together and attempt to construct a general picture. I would like to stress the need to treat Athenaeus’ testimonies with caution. It is possible that he or his sources attempted to reconcile diVerent local performances and their traditional names with the Aristotelian theory about the development of comedy, from both phallic songs and iamboi,85 perhaps adhering to the theory of the Sicilian origin of comedy.86 Sosibius, as Taplin suggests, might have been biased by local patriotism, and preferred to associate old dramatic forms with Sparta.87 Conclusions, therefore, are necessarily tentative. Athenaeus mentions a type of performance at Syracuse by iambistai, ‘performers of iamboi’ (probably pre-Hellenistic). Semus refers to a type of performer named autokabdaloi, ‘improvisers’, as later being called iamboi. Their performances consisted in the recitation of poetic speeches, identiWed as iamboi. Unlike other entertainers, such as the ithyphalloi and the phallophoroi, the performers called iamboi wore no mask, mocked no one in the audience, carried no phalloi. The autokabdaloi are referred to by Sosibius as a variety of the deikelistai, generally speaking, mime-actors. This entertainment has been claimed to be a precursor of comedy, mime, and also iambos.88 Indeed, attempts have been made to connect the Syracusan iambistai, the autokabdaloi/iamboi, and Aristoxenus of Selinus’ iamboi and thus construct a single picture of the pre-literary, improvised iamboi of the Dorian areas. West postulates a Dorian, choral version of iamboi including singing, dancing, and some basic dramatic components, introduced into Sicily by Aristoxenus. This implies that in the Dorian colonies of Magna Graecia there was a type of iamboi distinct from the Ionian one, a choral rather than a solo performance,89 that remained sub-literary. The main weakness of this attractive hypothesis is that if a choral Dorian iambos existed, there is no shred of evidence for it in ancient sources, whereas the shadowy Aristoxenus, 85 Aristotle in the Poetics says that poetry originated from improvisation (1448b), from the exarchontes of the phallic songs (1449a), that authors of comedy are successors of the composers of iamboi (1449a), and that the Dorians laid a claim to have originated comedy (1448a). 86 Reich (1903), 254, 279–80, suggests that the testimonies quoted by Athenaeus are written under Aristotelian-Peripatetic inXuence. 87 Taplin (1993), 49. 88 West (1974), 36. 89 Brown (1997), 38.
276
The Performance of Iambos
as my study of Epicharmus fr. 77 suggested (Chapter 7, sect. 4), is credited with the introduction of something speciWc relating to iamboi, probably rhythm, or perhaps style or musical setting, not, however, with being a composer of iamboi as a genre. To sum up, iambistai and iamboi performed a type of local entertainment that remained sub-literary. In status they were associated with mimes, and as such they could have been part of troupes of professional actors. It is possible that the names reXect a perceived similarity with iamboi as a type of performance. If some historical imagining is allowed, Semus’ reference suggests to me that the iambists’ (iambistai and iamboi) routines were something between standup comedy, and poetry slam performances, that is to say, poetic monologues in which the performer is also an impersonator, whose monologues could sometimes turn dramatic through the impersonation of direct speech.
6 . IAMBOS A S P E R F OR M A N C E From the passages of Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, and Athenaeus surveyed in this chapter a clear possibility emerges: that the works of some of the famous archaic (and maybe later) iambographers were performed in public. Some of these performances may have taken place at religious festivals (Plato, Aristotle), in theatres (Clearchos), even as part of oYcial competitions (Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle). Rhapsodes’ repertoires included the works of Archilochus from an early stage (Heraclitus, Plato’s Ion), as later the rhapsode Mnasion performed Semonides’ iamboi. One noteworthy implication of the rhapsodic performance of iambic poetry is that professional performers must have played a role in the transmission of this type of poetry. As for the iambistai/iamboi, their entertainment may have been akin to iambic performances or included pieces known as iamboi. My analysis of the earliest testimony of the term iambos in Archil. 215W (Chapter 5) showed the genre to be compatible with a general type of ritualized commensal or convivial occasion, such as symposia, religious or civic public meals, festivals, etc. Such occasions were not
Public Performance of Iamboi
277
exclusive for iambic poetry. On the contrary, they were the scenarios for the performance of various genres of poetry and song. Furthermore, my analysis of the Iambe scene in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Chapter 6) supports the notion that iambos was conceived as having an entertaining function, compatible with those pleasurable contexts in which food and wine were shared. The contexts of performance that emerge from the sources studied in the present chapter are festivals, particularly festival competitions (mousikoi agones), and formal public displays by professionals in locations such as theatres. Such performances appear for the most part as entertainment displays ‘framed by ritual’. The performers are professional rhapsodes or professional entertainers, their shows consisting in the recitation of poems, at times singing to musical accompaniment (Chamaeleon, and cf. Chapter 8). Within a marginal and unidentiWed local tradition such performances seem, in turn, to have conferred the name iamboi on the performers themselves. The corpus of the ‘received iambos’ can neither prove nor disprove this hypothesis, and the question of what type of content or length would suit each possible context will ultimately rest on our perception of what is appropriate. I would suggest that narrative in trochaic tetrameters of military or moralizing content, as found in Archilochus, would suit performance at festivals. Poems of personal or political content would suit the more restricted meeting of hetaireiai at symposia. That poems migrated from one type of occasion to another is a real possibility. Semonides 7W is a piece that could have suited symposia, betrothal and wedding banquets, as well as ritual feasting in sanctuaries. Finally, the unfolding of evidence seems to suggest a development from original performances by aristocratic poets in the archaic period to re-performance of traditional material by professionals in the classical and early Hellenistic periods. However, I would suggest that the hypothesis of multiple performance and re-performance, and of migration from one context to another, is not to be construed chronologically. The institutions involved remained fairly stable over centuries, so that diVerent forms of performance could have coexisted at any given time. There was probably no single performance context of Greek iambos, there were probably various re-performance scenarios. The poets included in the ‘received iambos’ may have
278
The Performance of Iambos
performed and re-performed their poems at aristocratic symposia, civic gatherings, in sanctuaries and sometimes in the context of competition. Professional poets or rhapsodes may have included iambic poems by famous authors as well as, perhaps, modern ones, in performances given as entertainment at symposia, festivals, and competitions.
Part V Perceptions of Iambos
This page intentionally left blank
10 Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective Poetry Throughout Greek antiquity, from Aristotle on, iambic poetry was consistently associated with a cluster of concepts relating to abuse, to the point that the genre is often deWned as ‘invective in verse’. So the Etymologicum Magnum, for example, glosses the word iambophagos, ‘iambos eater’, as loidoros, ‘abusive, because iambos is abuse in verse’ (NÆ çª. › º æ. K Øc YÆ æ K Ø ºØæ Æ). As we have seen in Chapter 4, the view of iambos as poetic vituperation is typical of ancient Peripatetic and educational sources. However, if one reads ‘the other way round’, that is to say, if one looks into lexicographical deWnitions and asks which genres could be said to be ‘invective in verse’, our sources will not exclusively reply ‘iambos’. For example, in Photius’ summary of Proclus’ treatise we Wnd that sillos too is deWned by reference to abuse (› b ºº ºØæ Æ ŒÆd ØÆıæf ç Øø IŁæø å Ø, Phot. Bibl. 321a28–30).1 Moreover, Hesychius deWnes rhetorical invective, diabole, also as ‘abuse’ (s.v.) and even jests as ‘abuse for the sake of laughter’ (ŒÆ Æ ºØæÆ Æ ªºø åæØ, cf. also s.v. ŒHÆ). Thus, from a lexicographical point of view, verbal abuse is not exclusive to iambos, but is characteristic of many diVerent types of verbal utterances which employ invective for a variety of purposes. Indeed, abuse of named individuals appears in a number of archaic and classical (non-dramatic and non-epic) poets. For the archaic period the most conspicuous example in the Aeolic branch
1 Photius includes sillos among melic genres, perhaps by mistake.
282
Perceptions of Iambos
of poetry is that of Alcaeus.2 Abuse was also apparent in some of Sappho’s poetry (see Chapter 2). In the early Wfth century Timocreon of Rhodes wrote an invective poem against Themistocles in dactylo-epitrites, using the dialect of choral lyric poetry (fr. 727 PMG from about 478 bce, transmitted by Plutarch, Them. 21, 1, 197 V.). We also Wnd abuse in Anacreon (e.g. 388 PMG).3 In classical Athens political abusive songs against the tyrannicides were common enough, as an incidental reference by the orator Hypereides suggests. Indeed, in a speech from 338–336 bce Hypereides mentions a law forbidding abuse of Harmodios and Aristogeiton either in speech or in song:4 . . . K fiø ªæłÆ › B I E ºª Ø K EÆØ [Å d] ŒÆŒH <æ Ø ŒÆd æØ ª Æ fi pÆ[Ø K]d a ŒÆŒ Æ. j ŒÆd Ø K Ø, N f b f æª ı › B Pb ŁıŁ Ø fiþ E K EÆØ ŒÆŒH N E, f b çø e B ŒÆŒH ºª Ø. (Hyp. Phil. 3) . . . the people drew up a law forbidding anyone to speak ill of Harmodius and Aristogeiton or sing disparaging songs about them. It is therefore scandalous that, though the people saw Wt to prevent even a drunken man from abusing your ancestors, you should be speaking ill of the state even when you are sober.5
Although the songs on the tyrannicides that survive in the collection of Attic skolia transmitted by Athenaeus (Ath. 695a–b) are exclusively praise songs, it is clear from Hypereides’ reference that abusive skolia against Harmodios and Aristogeiton were common enough for the law to forbid them. Such songs were most likely sung in aristocratic circles but have not survived.6 They were probably, using Halliwell’s words, ‘political skolia of an undemocratic
2 For invective in Alcaeus, see fragments 9, 69, 70, 72, 129, 298, 306, 332, 348, 429 PLF. On invective in archaic Lesbian poetry, see Davies (1985); Andrisano (2001); Aloni (2001). Brown (1983) studies Anacreon 388 PMG. 3 On Timocreon’s invective see Bowra (1934), who suggests it is a skolion; Robertson (1980); Scodel (1983), on the generic interplay between praise and blame; Vox (1984); Stehle (1994). 4 Cf. Whitehead (2000), 48–52. 5 Translated by Burtt (1962), 415. 6 Reitzenstein (1893), 26–7. According to Reitzenstein, we can get an idea of the type of songs forbidden by the law from Aristophanes’ Wasps 1217 V. and Clouds 1358 V.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
283
Tendenz’.7 The restriction ‘for even a drunkard’ (Pb ŁıŁ Ø, cf. f b çø), which may have been part of the text of the law, suggests the symposion and the komos as occasions of performance for such abusive skolia. Both seventh-century bce Mytilene and Wfth- or fourth-century Athens may be representative of a more general phenomenon. Thus, abuse of named individuals, sometimes improvised, in contexts similar to those in which iamboi were performed, could occasionally take melic form, especially in areas such as Mytilene where metrical iambi may not have been available (see Chapter 11, sect. 5 with n. 58). There is therefore no reason to expect poems entailing psogos to be restricted exclusively to poems in iambic metres or to poems that were termed ‘iamboi’. Invective, then, is not exclusive to iamboi. Furthermore, the corpus of iambic poetry that I delineated in Chapter 2, the ‘received iambos’, includes poems and fragments that display a variety of themes and functions, with invective appearing only in part of the corpus. From this point of view invective cannot be said to be a deWning feature of the genre, but only one of the features perceived as dominant. As recent work on Greek iambic poetry has shown, moral exhortation (Degani, Bartol) and narrative (Bowie) are also prominent generic markers.8 In sum, invective does not appear as exclusive to iambic poetry nor as common to all items in the ‘received iambos’, nor was it regarded as such by the ancients before Aristotle. At a certain point, however, invective was perceived as a dominant feature of iambos, and later on ancient handbooks and lexica took the dominant as a deWning feature. It is in Aristotle, particularly the Poetics, that a view of iambos as essentially abusive crystallized. In Chapter 3 (sect. 5) I suggested that by Aristotle’s time there were at least Wve ways of understanding the term psogos: as a verbal act of rebuke, as a macro-genre, as a rhetorical category, as the overall eVect of a poem or speech, or as a section of a poem or speech. Aristotle himself used the term psogos in 7 Halliwell (1991a), 49. Whitehead (2000), 52 suggests that the unparalleled fi pÆ[Ø K]d a ŒÆŒ Æ could be part of the phraseology of the law. 8 Degani (1988a), passim; Bartol (1992a); (1992b); Bowie (2001a). Invective of named individuals crosses generic boundaries, cf. Koster (1980).
284
Perceptions of Iambos
relation to iambos as the eVect achieved by poems of Archilochus (Rh. 1418b29–31) and as the macro-genre to which iambos would belong (Po. ch. 4). However, the evidence from the archaic period that I discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 indicates that iambos was associated with entertainment, jokes, mockery, and relaxation, while evidence from the classical period (Chapter 7) indicates that the term iambos was used for a type of rhythm, a type of melody, a literary genre, and a type of performance, and was only occasionally related to abuse. How, then, did the notions of abuse, invective, blame, and vituperation come to be identiWed as the speciWc contents and functions of iamboi as a whole? That is to say, how, in the process of reception, did invective become the dominant feature of the genre? It is my contention that, previous to the categorization of iambos as invective, it was Archilochus who was Wrst of all conceptualized as a representative par excellence of blame poetry. Therefore, in this chapter I examine the types of contents associated with Archilochus before the Hellenistic period.9 Such early testimonies provide information on the reception of Archilochus at a stage when invective emerged as the dominant feature of his work. At the same time, as we shall see, they also suggest awareness regarding other aspects of his poetry. Thus, although Archilochus begins to function in the Wfth century bce as prototype of invective poetry, he is not simply reduced to that. As we shall see, Archilochus’ reputation was a matter of ideological contestation, and whoever praises or blames him usually has ulterior motives.
1. PINDAR’S ARCHILOCHUS: PRAISE AND BLAME In his two references to Archilochus, in the second Pythian ode (ll. 52–6) and the ninth Olympian ode (ll. 1–3), Pindar oVers two opposed yet complementary visions of Archilochus as a poet of both praise and blame.
9 On Archilochus’ reputation in antiquity, see Blumenthal (1922); Gallavotti (1949); Bossi (1990), 32–4, 57–63.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
285
At P. 2, composed for Hieron of Syracuse approximately in 470–468 bce, Pindar presents Archilochus as paradigmatic of blame poetry.10 Kb b åæ ç ª Ø Œ IØe ŒÆŒÆªæØA. r ªaæ (Œa Kg a ºº K IÆåÆ fi Æ łª æe æå ºå Ææıº ªØ åŁ Ø ØÆØ . (Pind. P. 2.52–6) But I must Xee the vehement bite of evil-speaking. For I have seen from afar fault-Wnding Archilochus in poverty, becoming fat from heavy-words hatred.
The variety of metaphors at work here makes the interpretation of the lines a rather complex task. ‘I must Xee the vehement bite of evilspeaking’ could refer to avoiding the attacks of slanderers or to avoiding becoming a slanderer himself. The latter seems to be required by the following sentence.11 The topic ‘I must praise’ then takes the form of rejecting abusive poetry,12 for which the ‘bite’ provides an extremely vivid image. In the expression translated as ‘fault-Wnding Archilochus’ the adjective łª æ could be not only active, ‘fault-Wnding’, but also passive, ‘blameworthy’. Thus, Pindar may be referring either to Archilochus’ practice of abusing others or to Archilochus’ deserving blame for that very practice. Hesychius, at any rate, glosses the word as passive (ÆNåæ , , K łª). Although a multiplicity of senses is to be expected in Pindar (the fault-Wnding poet becoming blameworthy), the aggression suggested by the ‘bite of slander’ is such that an active meaning seems more suitable. At any rate, the adjective psogeros together with the reference to ill-speaking (ŒÆŒÆªæ Æ) are the earliest explicit links between Archilochus and invective that we Wnd in ancient sources. A reference to Archilochus’ poverty,13 which recurs in the tradition of the poet’s vita (e.g. Critias 88 DK), also appears here for the Wrst time. 10 Brown (2006), 46, and see p. 36 n. 2 for a survey of scholarly views on the passage. For the interpretation of the whole passage see also Miller (1981). 11 Burton (1962), 119. For a biographical interpretation according to which Pindar refers to slanderers against himself cf. Farnell (1932), 124–5. 12 Cingano (1995), 385. 13 IÆåÆ Æ is often associated in archaic poetry with Æ, Cingano (1995), 386.
286
Perceptions of Iambos
The participle ØÆØ , ‘growing fat’, seems to continue the metaphor that opens with Œ, ‘bite’.14 Archilochus is depicted pejoratively as feeding on hatred.15 The imagery of food and eating, as Brown suggests, is often used for human morality, and gluttony itself can easily move from the literal to the metaphorical.16 We Wnd similar derogatory references to eating as a means of criticism in Semonides’ poem against women (ØÆ ÆØ 7.6 and cf. 24, 46–7 for KŁ Ø) and in Hipponax’ parodical hexameters (128.2W). Furthermore, Archilochus’ food is heavy ( Ææıº ªØ åŁ Ø, ‘heavy-words hatred’), unlike Pindar’s song, which is often described as ‘winged’ and therefore capable of Xying away and bringing fame to both the victor and the poet.17 The image of Archilochus eating and getting fat suggests a bestial behaviour,18 thus suiting this ode which has numerous references to animals.19 Moreover, many of the animals Pindar mentions in the ode appear in Archilochus’ work as well, mostly in the fables: the eagle in line 50 (cf. Archil. 174W), the dolphin in line 51 (cf. Archil. 192 and 122W), the ape in line 72 (cf. Archil. 185W and 187W), and the fox in line 77 (cf. Archil. 174W, 185W, and 201W). Pindar follows the Greek literary tradition of assigning Wxed characteristics to animals.20 Invective poets, and iambic poets in particular,21 resorted to the personiWcation of animals as a means of criticism and abuse. This is evident not only in the animal fables that appear in Archilochus’ epodes, but also in Semonides 7W, in which various types of women are identiWed with diVerent animals. Most speciWcally, the ass-woman is depicted as eating all day long (7.46–7). Thus, in this section of the ode Pindar is using iambic ammunition against an iambic poet. He is abusing Archilochus, the very poet of abuse. 14 The bite as metaphor for abuse is common for referring to envy in Latin literature, cf. Hor. Epod. 1.14.38 (morsus); Sat. 2.1.75–8 (dens); Od. 4.3.10 (mordeor). 15 Steiner (1986), 102. 16 Brown (2006), 38–9. 17 See I. 1.60 V. and particularly I. 5.63 for the connection between praise and a winged hymn; cf. Theognis 237–54. For the connection between words and Xight in the epic tradition see, for example, Od. 15.445 and 17.57. 18 ‘Œ connotes bestiality’, Lefkowitz (1976), 22. 19 Steiner (1986), 102; Burton (1962), 124. A few lines before our passage (lines 39–40) Ixion is described as caught in a trap like an animal. 20 Steiner (1986), 101. 21 For a survey of food and animals in the trimeters of Archilochus, Semonides, Solon, and Hipponax, see Kantzios (2005), 34–66.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
287
What purpose would it serve to abuse a poet from the past in an encomiastic song? Pindar makes a distinction between two diVerent, even opposite, poetic practices, his own and Archilochus’. To put it in more general terms, between two kinds of poetry: praise poetry (cf. KÆØ E at l. 67) and blame poetry (ŒÆŒÆªæØA at l. 53, łª æ at l. 55).22 Praise poetry is associated with glory, fame, and wealth, whereas blame poetry is associated with poverty and lack of fame.23 The opposing types of praise and blame poetry were seen by Nagy as the two genres that constitute a fundamental institution of archaic Greece and its poetics (see Chapter 3, sect. 5).24 In this line of interpretation, Pindar’s passage is often taken as programmatic, and the reference to Archilochus is understood as an allusion to iambos. However, one should be cautious and not take blame poetry and iambos as one and the same thing. As far as this passage is concerned, an identiWcation of blame poetry as iambos risks a circular argument: Pindar refers to Archilochus as psogeros; iambos is often associated with psogos (e.g. Po. 1448b 30–4); thus Pindar must refer to Archilochus’ iambos; therefore he attests the link between iambos and psogos. Rather than taking P. 2.52–6 as a reference to iambos, it seems safer to take it as a reference to Archilochus’ personal reputation as a poet of abuse and ill-speaking (psogos and kakegoria), which may involve, but need not, an allusion to iambos as a genre. We may go further and say that Archilochus is construed by Pindar as prototype of blame poetry in deliberate, professional antagonism to his own poetics. Furthermore, Pindar’s criticism of Archilochus can be set against a broader political background. According to Marcaccini, in the Wfth century the Delphian sanctuary promoted a rehabilitation of Archilochus in relation to the colonization of Thasos.25 Hence, by stressing the invective aspects of Archilochus’ poetry, Pindar may be contesting the heroization of Archilochus, precisely in an ode for a victory at Delphi. Needless to
22 Nagy (1976), 195. 23 Although ironically Pindar’s very mention of Archilochus seems to prove the opposite, Archilochus’ fame appears in this ode as an undesirable one (cf. Nagy (1976), 196). 24 Nagy (1976), 191 (¼ Nagy (1979), 222); Cingano (1995), 385; cf. Gentili (1988a), 107–14. 25 Marcaccini (2001), 62–93; see also Tarditi (1956).
288
Perceptions of Iambos
say, Pindar’s perception of Archilochus does not reXect on all Archilochean poetry. Our next passage, Olympian 9, opens with a reference to Archilochus: $e b æåغ åı º çøA ˇºı fi Æ, ŒÆºº ØŒ › æغ Œ åºÆ [¼ Archil. 324.1W] ¼æŒ ˚æ Ø Ææ ZåŁ ±ª FÆØ ŒøÇ Ø ç ºØ ¯çÆæ fiø f ( Æ æØ. (Pind. O. 9.1–5) The song of Archilochus resounding at Olympia, that triumphal hymn swelling with three refrains, suYced for Epharmostos to lead the way by Kronos’ hill as he celebrated with his close companions.26
The nature of the song (º) of Archilochus that Pindar mentions was a matter of controversy already in Hellenistic times. The deWnite article ( ) suggests that it was a well-known song. Hellenistic scholars considered it either an epinician or a hymn to Heracles.27 The poem containing the line to which Pindar referred is edited as spurious by West (Archil. 324W).28 Casadio, on the other hand, argues in favour of the authenticity of the fragment.29 If Casadio is right, Pindar, O. 9.3 would be the earliest reference to an Archilochean poem, before Aristotle’s quotations in the Rhetoric. Whether Archil. 324W was composed by Archilochus or not, Pindar provides evidence of a tradition according to which Archilochus was the 26 Translated by Race (1997), 149. 27 ¯æÆ ŁÅ çÅØ c KØ ŒØ rÆØ, Iºº o N ˙ æÆŒºÆ (Schol. Vet. in Pind. O. 9.1, p. 268, 14–16 Drachmann). ŒÆºº ØŒ is an epithet of Heracles (cf. Casadio (1996), 68 and n. 7), and its use by Aristophanes (Ach. 1227 V.; Av. 1763 V.) suggests that it was a refrain typical of victory. For a thorough assessment of the whole tradition, see Casadio (1996), 67–72. 28
ººÆ ŒÆºº ØŒ åÆEæ ¼Æ ˙ 挺 Ø, ÆP ŒÆN ºÆ, ÆNåÅ a ø. 29 Casadio (1996), 62–72.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
289
author of a song or a refrain appropriate for the celebration of victory at competitions. Pindar conceives a speciWc occasion of performance: a komos after an athletic victory at Olympia. This need not of course be an historical occasion. For our purpose it is enough that Pindar took it as a plausible one, for either as an epinician or as a hymn, this song would fall into the category of praise poetry.30 Going back to P. 2.52–6, Pindar witnesses the beginning of the consolidation of psogos and kakegoria as dominant features of Archilochus’ poetry. As we shall see, Archilochus will continue to be perceived as the poet of psogos par excellence. However, the fact that Pindar attributed to Archilochus the authorship of a victory song should warn us against giving the testimony of P. 2 excessive weight.31 In fact, Pindar reXects a twofold perception of Archilochus’ work. The Wrst is his reputation as a blame poet. The second, which is often overlooked, relates to his authorship of a famous praise song. Such a dual reputation would support my interpretation of Heraclitus 42 DK in Chapter 9 as referring to a spectrum of Archilochus’ poetry rather than exclusively to blame.
2. ARCHILOCHUS ON THE ATHENIAN STAGE Comic poets knew how to exploit the reputation of the iambographers, particularly of Archilochus. The Athenian Cratinus wrote a play entitled Archilochuses. The play is traditionally dated to 450/449 bce, not long after Cimon’s death,32 although later dates have also
30 It is noteworthy that if, like other poems in antiquity, O. 9 was ever referred to by its opening words, then it must have been known as $e b æåغ åı º. As a title, this could have contributed to shaping the way ancient scholars perceived Archilochus. In terms of later literary criticism, Archilochus’ song would belong to the category of melic poetry, thus making plausible the idea of an ‘Archilochus lyricus’. 31 Miller (1981), 140 n. 21. 32 Tanner (1920), 172–3 collects the evidence and references for the traditional dating, and proposes that the play was produced in 447 (see also OCD2 s.v. ‘Cratinus’).
290
Perceptions of Iambos
been suggested.33 The title in the plural suggests that the chorus consisted of Archilochus’ followers. The few extant fragments and ancient sources indicate that the Archilochuses deals with a literary subject. According to Clement of Alexandria, in this play Cratinus praises Homer and Hesiod by calling them sophists (Strom. I 24, 1–2).34 It may thus be that the play staged a confrontation between Archilochus and the epic poets Homer and Hesiod. Furthermore, Whittaker suggests a division of the chorus into half-choruses similar to that of Aristophanes’ Acharnenses and Lysistrata: half the chorus would have supported Archilochus and the other half, Homer.35 Indeed, some of the extant fragments of the play are written in hexameters (e.g. frr. 6, 8), which would be appropriate to an epic poet, and one of them hints at this confrontation: r c ¨Æ Æ –ºÅ x ¼
Æ ÆßÇ Ø; ‰ s ŒÆd Æåø I Æ ŒÆd ÆæÆåæBÆ. P Ø Ææa Œøçe › ıçºe ØŒ ºÆºBÆØ. (Cratin. Archilochoi fr. 6 KA) Did you see how this Thasian brine-sauce barks? How well and quickly he got his revenge, with no delay! But the blind man isn’t likely to talk to a deaf one.36
The expression ‘Thasian brine’ (¨Æ Æ –ºÅ) refers to Archilochus, and ‘the blind’ (› ıçº ) to Homer. Archilochus’ utterance is described as barking ( ÆßÇ Ø, vs. Homer’s ºÆºBÆØ), quick and eVective even if it is uttered on the spot (ŒÆd ÆæÆåæBÆ). Rosen suggests that ‘Archilochus was responding to a previous speaker. . . and, typical of an iambographer, his response is viewed as a requital (an I
ØØ)’.37 In his commentary on Aristophanes Platonius describes Cratinus as an imitator of Archilochus precisely in his harsh abuse.38 That
33 On the basis of an allusion to the young Callias, Austin suggests a date around 430 bce, PCG 4, 121. Luppe (1973) suggests a date between 435 and 423 bce. 34 ŒÆd P <y Ø>, Iººa ŒÆd ƒ ØÅ Æd çØ Æ , ŒÆŁa ŒÆd ˚æÆ E K æåغ åØ f æd Åæ ŒÆd ˙ KÆØH o ø ŒÆº E (Strom. I 24, 1–2 ¼ Cratinus, Archilochoi, fr. 2 Austin). 35 ‘With Hesiod as tertius gaudens’, Whittaker (1935), 185; cf. DTC2 160. 36 Translated by Olson (2006), vol. 2, 291. 37 Rosen (1988a), 43. 38 ˚æÆ E › B ƺÆØA Œøfiø Æ ØÅ , – c ŒÆ a a æåغ åı Çź Ø, ÆP Åæe b ÆE ºØæ ÆØ K (Cratinus Test. 17 KA).
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
291
Archilochus had some inXuence on Cratinus is evident in both metre and content.39 Hence, as Rosen suggests, both Archilochus and iambos were for Cratinus an important source of inspiration.40 If in the Archilochuses Cratinus dramatized a confrontation between Archilochus and Homer, these poets probably represented diVerent sets of values, or even diVerent types of poetry. Rosen has suggested that Cratinus’ intention was to legitimize the abusive element of comedy.41 In this context, that Archilochus represented poetic abuse and vituperation seems the Wrst obvious guess. He may well have represented invective in contrast to Homer’s praise of noble deeds. However, Archilochus’ reputation in the classical period was complex, and a contraposition with Homer may have had further implications. Archilochus could also stand for a downto-earth stance against Homer’s aristocratic values. He might possibly have defended aischrologia or at least the use of an explicit and straightforward language, or even parrhesia (ÆææÅ Æ), ‘freedom of speech’ as a democratic value. Or perhaps Archilochus stood as the representative of humorous poetry against serious poetry represented by Homer. In addition, the contest and the judgement, if there was such, could have been based on a moral point of view, with regard to the poets’ vitae. As we shall see in section 5, there was enough in Archilochus’ poetry to credit him with a disreputable character and unseemly actions. If Whittaker is right in her suggestion that in this play Homer was defeated by Archilochus,42 this victory could acknowledge the social function of the poetry that Archilochus represented in spite of the questionable aspects of his life as it was construed from his own poetry. Much of what can be said about Cratinus’ Archilochuses remains speculative. The fact that Archilochus was brought onto the stage along with the most famous epic poets may suggest that the play contained quotations of and allusions to his poems, including his iamboi, and possibly also imitation of his style and diction.43 All 39 For Archilochus’ inXuence on Cratinus’ metre, see frr. 10, 11, 32, 62, 225, 360, 363; for inXuence on his content, see frr. 1, 3, 102, 138, 211, 368, 387, 505. 40 Rosen (1988a), 37–58. 41 Rosen (1988a), 43. 42 Whittaker (1935), 185. 43 See, for example, the comic patronymic ¯æÆ Å in Cratinus fr. 11 which recalls Archil. fr. 168W. On Archilochus’ use of real and Wctitious names see Bonanno (1980), especially 75–6, 78 on fr. 168W. If fr. adesp. 1325K (Plu. Mor. 811f) belongs to Cratinus’ Archilochuses it is a clear imitation of Archil. fr. 115W (Rosen (1988a), 47).
292
Perceptions of Iambos
this, of course, implies that Cratinus’ audience must have been acquainted with Archilochus, with some of his poems or with the type of poetry that he represented: poetic invective, anti-aristocratic values, freedom of speech. Cratinus was not the only comic poet to bring Archilochus on-stage. About 354–339 bce Alexis wrote an Archilochus. The title suggests a single central character rather than a chorus. Needless to say, there was enough in Archilochus’ biography, true or Wctional, for a plot typical of New Comedy. Archilochus’ alleged poverty could have made him suitable for the type of the young man with no money, and his aVair with Neoboule had the potential of being reshaped with Lycambes as the typical obstructive father. Unfortunately only three lines from this play survive and nothing can be said with conWdence. More illuminating for our inquiry is the comic poet Diphilus of Sinope who, towards the end of the fourth century bce, brought two iambographers on-stage. Diphilus composed a play called Sappho44 in which, according to Athenaeus (599d), Archilochus and Hipponax appeared as characters: ˜ çغ › ŒøfiøØØe ÅŒ K ÆçE æÆ Ø ÆçF KæÆ a æå ºå ŒÆd ÆŒ Æ. (Ath. 599d) In the play entitled Sappho Diphilus, the comedy writer, made Archilochus and Hipponax Sappho’s lovers.
The word lovers (KæÆ Æ ) suggests that Diphilus’ Sappho involved something of an erotic plot. The two iambic poets might have been rival pursuers of Sappho. Perhaps through parody of their style and diction, Archilochus and Hipponax were taken as representatives of one and the same type of poetry which was contrasted to that of Sappho.45 As a matter of fact, Diphilus’ Sappho is our earliest joint 44 The only surviving fragment of Diphilus’ Sappho is transmitted by Athenaeus (486f): æå ºå , ÆØ c ÆØ æ Æ c ˜Øe ø Bæ, ªÆŁF ˜Æ (PCG V, Diphilus fr. 70) Sappho was also the title of comedies by Antiphanes, Timocles, Ephippus, Ameipsias, and Amphis. 45 Degani (1984), 33.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
293
reference to Archilochus and Hipponax. The fact that both poets appeared as characters in the same play probably implies that they were perceived as members of the same group or even the same generic category. I would suggest that Diphilus’ presentation of two iambographers, precisely those later appearing at the core of the canon, indicates a transition from an archetypal model towards the perception of iambos as a genre by virtue of dominant features, that took place at the end of the fourth century bce, perhaps simultaneously with the crystallization of a perception of iambos as belonging to the general broader category of psogos.
3 . TH E PA R IA N H E RO I ZAT I O N O F A RC H I LO C H U S Emblematic of the ambivalent esteem in which Archilochus was held in the fourth century bce is a comment of Alcidamas transmitted by Aristotle (Rh. 1398b11). The orator Alcidamas, born in Elaea in the last quarter of the Wfth century, was active between 390 and 365 bce. The remark on Archilochus probably comes from his Mouseion.46 ŒÆd ‰ ºŒØÆ, ‹ Ø f çf ØHØ —æØØ ªF æå ºå ŒÆ æ ºçÅ Z Æ ØŒÆØ. (Arist. Rh. 1398b11–12) ‘Everyone honours the wise’, Alcidamas says, ‘the Parians, at any rate, have honoured Archilochus despite his being blasphemous.’
Archilochus is the Wrst in a list of poets and philosophers that exemplify the principle that ‘everyone honours the wise’ in spite of character (Archilochus, Chilon), gender (Sappho), or place of origin (Homer, Anaxagoras).47 Thus being blasphemous appears as an impediment similar to lacking citizenship (as Homer) or being a woman (as Sappho). Blasphemy and its cognates are usually applied to irreverence towards the gods or to slander in a rhetorical and 46 Muir (2001), 86. Avezzu´ (1982), on the contrary, prints Aristotle’s quotation as fragments 3 and 4 of Alcidamas’ Physikon. 47 A reference to Pythagoras in this passage (ŒÆd ƺØH ÆØ —ıŁÆª æÆ) has been omitted by Muir (2001), 86, following Kassel, who believes it is a marginal note (Kassel (1971), 139–40).
294
Perceptions of Iambos
juridical sense.48 Thus, to the usual connection of Archilochus with abuse, Alcidamas adds a possible allusion to the religious, rhetorical, or judicial realms. Epigraphical evidence from Paros bears witness to Archilochus’ reputation on the island from an early stage, thus conWrming the Wrst part of Alcidamas’ statement, namely, that the Parians honoured Archilochus. Surprisingly enough, the third-century bce Parian inscription known as the ‘Mnesiepes inscription’ conWrms the second part as well, namely, that honours were conferred on Archilochus in spite of the perception by part of the community of some of his compositions as inappropriate. The earliest epigraphical testimony on Archilochus found in Paros comes from a mid-fourth-century bce funerary inscription discovered in 1961 on an ionic capital of the sixth century bce: æå ºå —æØ $ º ØŒº KŁ Œ E ÆØ
Ð ˜ ŒØ ÅØ › ˝ Œæø Ł Œ . (CEG 674) Archilochus of Paros, the son of Telesikles, lies here buried. Dokimos, son of Neokreon, established this as a memorial for him.49
The capital probably belonged to the precinct of a supposed tomb of Archilochus, around which a monument to the poet was built in the third century bce. The cult of the poet could have gone back to the sixth century bce.50 The Parians, however, had to come to terms with two contrasting aspects of Archilochus, as emerges from the third-century bce Mnesiepes’ inscription (SEG XV.517), found in Paros in the valley of the river Elita.51 Mnesiepes was probably a rhapsode.52 His name ( ÅØÅ) combines the notion of ‘remembering’ and ‘verses’, as Nagy puts it: ‘he who remembers the words [as in epos 48 LSJ s.vv. ºÆçÅø, ºÆçÅ Æ, ºçÅ. 49 Translated by Clay (2004), 104. 50 Kontoleon (1964), 46. Literary, epigraphical and archaeological traces of the cult of Archilochus are studied by Clay (2004). 51 Text and translation in Clay (2004), 104–10. See also Gerber (1999a), 17–25. The inscription is studied in its archaeological context by Clay (2004), 10–24. For further bibliographical references, see also Clay (2004), 104 and Correˆa (2008). 52 Clay (2004), 10, with further references on n. 14.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
295
‘word’]’.53 Tarditi, partly following Peek, proposed that the inscription was set up by a rhapsodic thiasos (religious association), interested in advertising a particular version of Archilochus’ life that was also promoted by Delphi.54 Indeed, according to his own report, Mnesiepes’ account is a conXation of tradition and research.55 Fragments of columns II and III of the inscription include a narrative framed by references to oracles delivered by the Delphian Apollo.56 One of these oracles has to do with the establishment of Archilochus’ cult in Paros in a place called the Archilocheion. The inscription further expands on the origins of the Parian cult of Archilochus through a story about his encounter with the Muses. According to Mnesiepes, the story goes that as a young man the poet met a group of women as he was on his way to town to sell a cow. After Archilochus and the women traded jokes, the women disappeared with the cow, leaving him a lyre in exchange. What is striking in this narrative, in comparison with other divine meetings in Greek literature,57 is the fact that Archilochus is said to have taken the initiative in mocking the Muses (Œ Ø),58 to which they responded with jests and laughter ( a ÆØØA ŒÆd ªºø ). The nature of the verbal exchange between the poet and the Muses is thus depicted in terms that reXect the perception of Archilochus’ poetry as making fun and provoking laughter, the traditional motif being adapted to function as an aetiology of what was perceived as representative of Archilochus’ work. The inscription goes on to explain that Telesikles, Archilochus’ father, surprised by what had happened, put a personal question to the oracle when he was sent to Delphi on behalf of Paros. The oracle
53 Nagy (1979), 304. 54 Tarditi (1956), 139. For Delphi and the poets, see Defradas (1954). For Archilochus and Delphi, see Parke and Wormell (1956), 396–8 and Parke (1958) for an approach to the oracles on Archilochus in relation to Mnesiepes. 55 — æd b z M ıºŁÅ IƪæłÆØ, ÆæÆ Æ E e H IæåÆ ø ŒÆd ÆP d æÆªÆ ŁÆ (E1 II, 20–3). ‘Now, concerning the matters we wanted to record, these are the traditions that have been handed down to us by the ancients and which we have worked out ourselves’ (translated by Clay (2004), 109). 56 Parke (1958). 57 Williams (1994) outlines the divine encounter motif in Greek, Roman, and early Christian literature. 58 Correˆa (2008).
296
Perceptions of Iambos
replied that the Wrst of Telesikles’ sons to meet him on his return to Paros would be famous and immortal. That son was, of course, Archilochus. Here the narration breaks oV. On column III there is a lacunose description of Archilochus’ improvisation of a song to Dionysos at a festival in Paros that was deemed ‘too iambic’ (NÆ ØŒ æ). Only the beginnings of the lines survive: › ˜Ø ı [ ıºÆ ıÆÇ[ _ ZçÆŒ Æ[ FŒÆ º[ ˇNçº øØ æ[
(E1 III, 31–35 ¼ fr. 251W)
Dionysos . . . grains of barley . . . unripe grapes . . . Wgs . . . for the fucker . . . 59
It seems that the song was misunderstood (P ŒÆ Æ[Æ Æ, E1 III, 39) and a wrong decision was made (K E Œæ Ø, E1 III, 42).60 Consequently, the community was punished with impotence, until an oracle revealed that only honouring Archilochus would bring them release. The inscription ends (E2 I) by telling of Archilochus’ accomplishments in war. This is the topic of a second inscription found in Paros, set up by Sosthenes in the Wrst century bce, which relies on a chronicle by Demeas.61 Asking whether the account given by the inscription is genuine would be misleading. We should ask instead to what extent it is based on Archilochus’ poetry, and whether it retains information about original contexts of performance of his poetry. While parts of the story may have been a Parian pre-Hellenistic tradition, and the oracles were probably independently recorded, the initiation scene 59 Translated by Clay (2004), 109. 60 West suggests that the citizens interpreted the song in malam partem and summoned Archilochus before court (IEG2, p. 91, n. to fr. 251.5). Miralles and Po`rtulas suggest that Archilochus performed the song at a poetic competition (Miralles and Po`rtulas (1983), 78), which could imply that Archilochus did not win. 61 Text and translation in Clay (2004), 111–18 (with further bibliography on p. 111).
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
297
was possibly described by Archilochus himself in one of his poems (Correˆa suggests that Archil. 35W belongs to such an initiation poem).62 The text of the inscription shows many similarities to other initiation scenes in ancient Greek poetry, such as Hesiod’s, whereas the guilt and punishment pattern appears, for example, in a biographical account of Aesop.63 Furthermore, the ‘Wrst to be met’ motif, as Parke has shown, is a conventional one in Delphic legends.64 The intertwining of stock scenes and traditional motifs indicates that, although it may be using earlier material, the Mnesiepes inscription is an aetiological narrative.65 It aims at justifying the less acceptable aspects of Archilochus’ poetry (mockery and scurrility) by the more acceptable ones (Delphian endorsement and military heroism). All these aspects are interwoven in a narrative whose goal is to legitimize Archilochus. The judgement of ‘too iambic’ should be considered in this context. It is not the rhythm of the song, which appears to be dactylic in the last three lines, that prompted that qualiWcation. Rather, the blatant sexual allusions implied by the grapes and Wgs, and the epithet Oipholios, ‘the fucker’, seem to have brought about the evaluation of the song as ‘too iambic’.66 Thus, iambikoteron would mean ‘too obscene’.67 As Hawkins points out, the judgement has two important implications. First, a contrast is made with a normative, acceptable mode. Second, there is a clear notion of what iambos was.68 The inscription dates from the mid-third century bce, and includes material that may go back to the end of the Wfth century.69 From the seventh century bce (Archil. 215W) the word iambos had been in use for naming a type of poetry, and by Mnesiepes’ time it had consolidated around a cluster of features that have to do with vituperation and obscenity. The notion of what iambos 62 Correˆa (2008), with further references. 63 For Aesop, see P.Oxy. 1800, text and translation with further references in Clay (2004), 127–8. For conventional elements in the Hesiod scene, see West (1966), 159–60. On similarities and discrepancies with other initiation scenes, see Clay (2004), 14–16, with further references. Generally on the Delphian oracles about poets, see Parke and Wormell (1956), 393–400. See Compton (1990) for mythical patterns in the traditional biographies of Aesop, Homer, and Archilochus. 64 Parke (1958), 93. 65 Nagy (1990), 396. 66 Clay (2004), 16–23, with further references. 67 Miralles and Po`rtulas (1983), 78; Gerber (1999a), 25 n. 1. 68 Hawkins (2008). 69 Parke (1958), 94.
298
Perceptions of Iambos
was, implied by ‘too iambic’, is removed from the archaic use of the term. Mnesiepes’ report that the judgement was applied to a poem performed in a ritual context is, in my view, part of his apologetics attempting to legitimate the obscenities in Archilochus’ poetry by indicating their role in ritual. In sum, the Mnesiepes inscription witnesses the strength both of criticism of Archilochus and of defence on his behalf. In the same way that Pindar may have had professional and ideological reasons for opposing Archilochus as representative of invective poetry, Mnesiepes had reasons for promoting a positive interpretation of scurrility in Archilochus’ poetry, and of Archilochus’ role in Parian cult and history.
4. T H E G O L DE N G O RG I A S A N D T H E N EW ARCH I LO C H U S A couple of anecdotes involving Plato and Gorgias suggest that the name Archilochus was occasionally used as a term of abuse. They appear in a passage of Athenaeus (505d–e) about Plato’s animosity against others, particularly philosophers. ºª ÆØ b ‰ ŒÆd › ˆæª Æ ÆP e Iƪf e ›ı Æ fiH غª æe f ıŁ Ø çÅ ‘‰ ŒÆºH r —º ø NÆ Ç Ø.’ ‚æØ b K
fiH æd ˆæª ı ‘‰ K Å , çÅ , ÆE ŁÆØ ˆæª Æ a e ØÆŁÆØ c IŁ Ø B K ˜ ºçE (Æı F åæıB NŒ , N
F —º ø, ‹ r ÆP , ‘lŒ Ø E › ŒÆº ŒÆd åæıF ˆæª Æ,’ çÅ › ˆæª Æ ‘q ŒÆº ª ƃ ŁBÆØ [ŒÆd] 70 F æå ºå KÅ åÆØ.’ (Ath. 505d–e) It is reported that Gorgias, himself reading the dialogue named after him, remarked to his intimates, ‘How nicely Plato knows how to abuse (iambizein).’ And Hermippus in his work On Gorgias says: ‘When Gorgias arrived in Athens after dedicating the gold statue of himself at Delphi, Plato seeing him said: ‘‘Here comes our noble and golden Gorgias’’; to which Gorgias replied: ‘‘Noble indeed and new is this Archilochus that Athens has produced.’’ ’71 70 Lorenzoni (1995) reads ŒÆØ and suggests that the ŒÆ originated in a mistaken divisio verborum. 71 Translated by Gulick (1955), vol. 5, 269, with slight adaptation.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
299
‘How nicely Plato knows how to iambizein’ is the reaction attributed to Gorgias after reading the Platonic dialogue bearing his name. The source of this information is not mentioned. Athenaeus’ previous emphasis on Plato’s abuse (ŒÆŒºª E, Ath. 505b, 506a; ØÆ ºº Ø, 505c; O Ø Ç Ø, 506b) indicates that the verb iambizein (NÆ Ç Ø) includes the sense of ‘vituperate’. The verb, in fact, encapsulates Gorgias’ evaluation of the whole of Plato’s dialogue as a means of abuse. The second anecdote comes from Hermippus of Smyrna (3rd cent. bce) who wrote a book entitled On Gorgias ( æd ˆæª ı). Athenaeus’ quotation constitutes the only surviving fragment of that book. According to Hermippus, after Gorgias dedicated a golden statue of himself at Delphi, Plato saw him in Athens and made an ironic comment, to which Gorgias replied: ‘Indeed, Athens has produced this beautiful new Archilochus’. Whereas both beautiful (ŒÆº ) and new (), as Lorenzoni suggests, are probably used in malam partem,72 the name Archilochus certainly acts as a term of abuse. Given Archilochus’ reputation, it is not surprising that his name was seen as a term of abuse. Furthermore, Archilochus’ twofold reputation, as a poet of abuse and a person of questionable character, is perhaps implied in Gorgias’ alleged comment that Plato was at the same time abusive and blameworthy. These two anecdotes have scant historical basis. There is no evidence for an encounter between Gorgias and Plato, and that such an encounter occurred seems chronologically very unlikely. Moreover, the structure of the two anecdotes is extraordinarily similar to the pattern of chreiai, with the characteristic introductory participles (Iƪ, N ), Wnite verb of saying (çÅ in both cases), and witty closure.73 Shall we dismiss them as mere literary inventions of a Hellenistic commentator such as Hermippus, whose biographical work was considered to be rather sensational?74 Perhaps these anecdotes were circulating in intellectual circles already in the second half of the fourth century bce. 72 Lorenzoni (1995), 113. 73 Hock (1986), 23–41. 74 PfeiVer (1968), 129; Degani (1984), 23; OCD3 s.v. ‘Hermippus (2)’. Hermippus wrote a æd ÆŒ in several books (Ath. 327b ¼ fr. 93 Wehrli) and according to Degani, he may be the source of much of the biographical details on Hipponax’ life (Degani (1984), 23 and 35).
300
Perceptions of Iambos
5. CRITIAS’ INVECTIVE AGAINST ARCHILOCHUS7 5 Critias’ famous statement about Archilochus (44 DK) is usually taken as a testimony for Archilochus as poet of invective. `N ØA ÆØ ˚æØ Æ æå ºå ‹ Ø ŒŒØ Æ (Æı e r . ‘ N ªaæ c’ çÅd ‘KŒ E ØÆ Å Æ bæ (Æı F K f ‚ººÅÆ K ªŒ , PŒ i KıŁ ŁÆ E h ‹ Ø ¯ ØF ıƒe q B ºÅ, hŁ ‹ Ø ŒÆ ƺØg —æ Øa Æ ŒÆd Iæ Æ qºŁ K ¨, hŁ ‹ Ø KºŁg E K ÆFŁÆ KåŁæe Kª , h c ‹ Ø › ø f ç ºı ŒÆd f KåŁæf ŒÆŒH º ª . æe b Ø’ q n ‘h ‹ Ø Øåe q fi X Ø i N c Ææ ÆP F ÆŁ , h ‹ Ø ºª ŒÆd æØ , ŒÆd e Ø ø ÆYåØ, ‹ Ø c I Æ I ƺ . PŒ IªÆŁe ¼æÆ q › æå ºå æ ı (Æı fiH, ØF Œº IºØg ŒÆd ØÆ Å (Æı fiH çÅ.’ ÆF Æ PŒ Kªg æå ºå ÆN ØHÆØ, Iººa ˚æØ Æ. (Aelian, VH 10.13) Critias censures Archilochus because he spoke very ill of himself. For if, he says, Archilochus had not made public among the Greeks such an opinion of himself, we should not have learned that he was the son of Enipo, a slavewoman, that because of poverty and diYcult straits he left Paros and went to Thasos, that upon his arrival he became an enemy of the inhabitants, and in addition that he spoke ill of friends and enemies alike. And furthermore, he says, we should not have known that he was an adulterer, if we had not learned it from him, nor that he was lecherous and arrogant, nor what is still more shameful than this, that he threw away his shield. Therefore, by leaving behind such a report and such an account of himself Archilochus was not a good witness on his own behalf. It is Critias who censures him for this, not I.76
I suggest that Critias’ comments are ideologically driven, and consequently, that they are best understood as invective against a poet of the past for what he represents in the present. Critias’ arguments, therefore, cannot be taken at face value, as a comprehensive survey of Archilochus’ output as a blame poet. What we know about Archilochus’ poetry corroborates this proposition. Military 75 This section reproduces, with slight verbal changes, an article originally published in Classical Philology 102.2 (# 2007 by The University of Chicago) (Rotstein (2007a)). 76 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 57. For Critias’ testimony in the context of Archilochus’ biographical tradition, see Rankin (1975); Rankin (1977); Lefkowitz (1981), 25–31; Cassio (1984). The passage is approached from the point of view of literary criticism by Lanata (1963), 222–3 and Rosen (2007a), 248–55.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
301
narrative was a signiWcant aspect of his work, and the biographical tradition of the Parian cult emphasizes Archilochus’ patriotism and military accomplishments. Furthermore, thanks to a newly identiWed fragment we have just begun to understand the extent of his use of mythic narrative.77 Therefore, instead of reading Critias’ testimony through the prism of a tradition that classiWes Archilochus as the poet of blame par excellence, I suggest that it should Wrst be examined in the context in which it was produced, and only then in its role of shaping the tradition. However, before I propose a manner and a context in which Critias’ original text may have functioned and show how the testimony addressed a debate in Athenian society of his time, Aelian’s role in the transmission should be considered. The relevant section of Aelian’s Varia Historia attests a complex process of reception: Aelian’s rendering of a text by Critias and Critias’ own response to Archilochus’ poems, some of which, in turn, Aelian himself may have known. The markers of indirect discourse, ‘he says’ (çÅ and q ‹) clearly point to the use of a written source, to which, however, Aelian makes no explicit reference. Such omission is not unusual in his miscellaneous work. What is entirely unparalleled is opening not with a verb of saying but with a verb of blaming, ‘Critias censures’ (`N ØA ÆØ ˚æØ Æ), repeated in the emphatic closure ‘For this not I censure Archilochus, but Critias’ ( ÆF Æ PŒ Kªg æå ºå ÆN ØHÆØ, Iººa ˚æØ Æ). The verb of blaming conveys Critias’ view about what he reports as reprehensible, without necessarily engaging Aelian’s point of view. This is further emphasized by ‘not I censure’ (PŒ Kªg ÆN ØHÆØ). Thus Aelian simultaneously manages to report Critias’ statement and to distance himself from it. The rebuke belongs entirely to Critias and the ultimate reporting subject remains apparently objective. Such a textual strategy probably stems from Critias’ and Archilochus’ problematic reputations. Critias’ language and rhetorical style were certainly admired by second- and third-century 77 The ‘new Archilochus’ (P.Oxy. LXIX 4708, fr. 1) was identiWed by Henry (1998) as belonging to a book of elegiac poems by Archilochus. This new poem supports Bowie’s hypothesis (1986, 36) that Archilochus may have composed extended narrative elegies of mythical content (but see Obbink’s suggestion that mythical narrative may have existed as an exemplum, Obbink (2005), 21).
302
Perceptions of Iambos
intellectuals,78 but his political activity and his role, real or perceived, in Socrates’ execution caused his virtual erasure from Greek cultural history.79 Other references in the Varia Historia reXect Critias’ problematic status. The Wrst mention of Critias couples him with Alcibiades, two young men encouraging Socrates to go to the theatre (2.13). Another describes Critias becoming ‘most tyrannical and murderous’ ( ıæÆØŒ Æ ŒÆd çØŒ Æ , 4.15).80 Later Critias is cited as the source of an accusation of corruption directed against Themistocles and Cleon (10.17 ¼ B 45 DK).81 Thus Aelian features three phases of Critias’ life: a disciple of Socrates who went wrong, a critic of democracy, a cruel politician. Archilochus’ status was problematic as well: a canonical poet admired by the few for his powerful language, he also represents a genre held in relatively low esteem and usually excluded from literary curricula.82 Critias and Archilochus were both admired, but not for their moral stance. Aelian endorses neither and gains credit just by displaying knowledge of both. 78 Cf. Philostr. VS 1.16 (¼ A 1 DK), Ep. 73 (¼ A 17 DK), DH, Lys. 2 (¼ A 18 DK), Hermog. Id. B 401, 25 Rabe (¼ A 19 DK), Herodes Atticus (Philostr. VS 1.14 ¼ A 21 DK), Phryn. PS (Phot. Bibl. 158 p. 101 b 4 Bekk. (¼ A 20 DK). For the reception of Critias in the second sophistic, see Centanni (1997), 89–135. 79 On Critias’ historiographical damnatio memoria, see: Bultrighini (1999), 38–47, and Wilson (2004). Recent work by Centanni (1997); Bultrighini (1999); Iannucci (2002); and Wilson (2003), assesses Critias’ extant writings in the context of a coherent ideological position. 80 Xenophon seems to be the source used by Aelian, VH 4.15: ˚æØ Æ b ªaæ H K fi B OºØªÆæå ÆØ ø Œº Æ ŒÆd ØÆØ
Æ ŒÆd çØŒ Æ Kª , ºŒØ ØÅ b Æs H K fi B ÅŒæÆ ÆØ ø IŒæÆ Æ ŒÆd æØ
Æ ŒÆd ØÆØ
Æ (Mem. 1.2.12). 81 ºª Ø ˚æØ Æ ¨ Ø ŒºÆ e ˝ Œºı æd j ¼æÆŁÆØ ºØ ŁÆØ æ Æ
ºÆ Æ å Ø c P Æ c Æ æØÆ K d b H ŒØH æ Å, r Æ çıª ŒÆd KÅ ŁÅ ÆP F P Æ, ŒÆ çøæŁÅ (ŒÆ e ƺ ø º ø P Æ åø. › ø b ŒÆd ˚ºøÆ æe F Ææ ºŁ E Kd a ŒØa Åb H NŒ ø Kº Ł æ rÆØ, a b Œ Æ Æº ø e rŒ IºØ (VH 10.17 ¼ B 45 DK). Bultrighini Wnds this fragment crucial in Critias’ propaganda against the leaders of the demos. Themistocles and Cleon would be emblematic of two points in the development of democracy, from consolidation to degeneration (Bultrighini (1999), 92). On a possible connection with our passage see below. 82 Dio Chrysostom, for example, states that elegy, iambic poetry, and dithyramb are suitable for those who have leisure, but not for an orator’s professional training (18.8). Cf. Vardi (2003) for Archilochus in Greek and Roman reading lists and Morgan (1998), 67–73 with tables 13, 15, 17 for his absence from school-text papyri from Egypt.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
303
It is diYcult to gauge the extent of Aelian’s editorial work, whether he quotes, summarizes, excerpts, or paraphrases. Answers to crucial questions, such as whether the original piece was long or short, in prose or in verse, and any inferences about its genre and occasion of performance will necessarily remain speculative. However, Aelian’s ambivalent attitude and his consequent reporting strategy may partly disclose something of Critias’ original text. If it was explicit that blame was the intended eVect of the piece, then perhaps Aelian paraphrases its Wrst and Wnal words. Though the passage is commonly viewed and edited as deriving from an unknown prose work,83 a diVerent view was proposed by Maykowska already in 1934: that Aelian or his source rendered in prose a piece that was originally in verse.84 This is plausible given Critias’ literary activity. He composed poems in elegiacs and hexameters on a variety of topics (B 1–9 DK) and engaged in matters of literary criticism, such as the origins of the dactylic hexameter (B 3 DK) or the poetry of Anacreon (B 1 DK). If Aelian or his source paraphrases in prose a poetic text, the passage is not a quotation but the result of a deeper transformation. Although not essential, this hypothesis is consistent with the rest of my argument. One could object that ‘he says’ (çÅ and q ‹) can only indicate quotation. A passage from Dio Chrysostom indicates that this does not need to be so: › b æå ºå, ‹ çÅØ fiH ººøØ IæÆØ, æd æÆ ÅªF ºªø o ø çÅØ P çغø ªÆ æÆ Åªe Pb ØÆ ºØª Pb æåØØ ªÆFæ P ıæÅ, [¼ Archil. 114.1–2W] Iºº Ø; çÅ ; YÅ ÞÆØ ; IçƺH ÅŒg ŒÆd Kd ŒÆØØ Æ: . . . (D.Chr. 33.17) But Archilochus who, I say, found favour with Apollo, speaks as follows about a general: 83 Following DK (1954), for example Stephans (1939), 91, Battegazzore (1962), 342–5. As for Archilochus, West IEG2 includes our passage in a section entitled incerti generis (295W). 84 Lanata (1963), 222 is exceptional in mentioning Maykowska’s hypothesis (Maykowska (1934), 136) that Aelian or his source put in prose a judgement originally expressed in verse, but remains doubtful.
304
Perceptions of Iambos I have no liking for a general who is tall, walks with a swaggering gait, takes pride in his curls, and is partly shaven.
Rather, he says, let mine be bowlegged, with a Wrm stand, and with thick hair on his shins.85
In the moralizing allegorical reading of Archil. 114W two diVerent textual strategies, quotation and paraphrase, can be discerned.86 Luckily we have lines 3 and 4 of Archil. 114W. Had only the paraphrases been known (Iºº Ø, çÅ , YÅ ÞÆØ , IçƺH ÅŒg ŒÆd Kd ŒÆØØ Æ), lacking an indication of author or context, there would have been a danger of taking the Wrst çÅ as an indication of a literal quotation and thus postulating a prose passage. Paraphrases as a means of explanation are characteristic of educational texts.87 Hence, if Aelian cites a text through an intermediary already in prose, I would suggest that the intermediary was a commentary. As far as the edition of Critias’ testimony is concerned, it is best to see it as coming from an unknown work, leaving open the question of its original form. Either in prose or in verse, the piece displays much of Critias’ style.88 It is evident that he meticulously followed a rhetorical plan. Archilochus’ character is established from his actions, as they are revealed in his own testimony.89 First Aelian reports in direct speech introduced by ‘he says’ (çÅ ) four instances of self-incrimination, followed by a second set of examples, which Aelian reports through ‘and he says’ (q ‹) and which Critias apparently introduced by ‘and furthermore’ (æe b Ø) or by something similar. The last
85 Translated by Gerber (1999a), 153. 86 The lines paraphrased by Dio Chrysostom are transmitted by Galen (Archil. 114.3–4W): Iºº Ø ØŒæ Ø YÅ ŒÆd æd ŒÆ N E ÞØŒ , Içƺø ÅŒg , ŒÆæ Å ºø. 87 For paraphrases in educational material, see Cribiore (2001), 207, with further references. 88 Centanni (1997), 99–100. 89 The widespread ancient belief that character and social status determine one’s words is witnessed in the Wrst chapters of Aristotle’s Poetics. Wilson (2003), 194–7 suspects that Philostratus, VS 1.16 ( N ªaæ c ›ºª Ø › º ª fiH XŁ Ø, Iºº æ fi Æ fi B ªº
fi Å çŁªª ŁÆØ, u æ ƒ ÆPº ) draws on a gnome by Critias about the need for consistency between words and character.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
305
example, the discarding of the shield, is preceded by a very harsh judgement, ‘and what is still more shameful than those’, probably Critias’ own appraisal. Finally, the conclusion goes back to the beginning and states that Archilochus was a poor witness on his own behalf. To achieve persuasion the instances of Archilochus’ self-incrimination are given in crescendo. The parallelism that concludes the passage, ‘by leaving such a report and such an account of himself ’ ( ØF Œº IºØg ŒÆd ØÆ Å (Æı fiH çÅ), uses the poetic kleos (Œº) and the more prosaic pheme (çÅ) to recall the initial reference to reputation (l. 2 Æ). Thus Critias’ piece bears resemblance to an elaborate, albeit concise, speech of prosecution (cf. æ ı), perhaps a mock-prosecution, targeting as it does a dead poet.90 The hypothesis that Critias’ piece was originally a poem gains some support from the passage’s form and content. The ring composition and the in crescendo presentation of arguments point to a self-standing poetic piece, with the Wnal parallelism as a suitable closure.91 Critias censures Archilochus for having made public shameful facts about himself92 and, by implication, for the facts themselves. An examination of the points raised by Critias against Archilochus can yield important clues to the aim of his accusation and the context in which it may have been expressed. 1. 2. 3. 4.
Archilochus was the son of a slave-woman, Enipo; he left Paros and went to Thasos out of poverty; he became an enemy of Thasos’ inhabitants;93 he spoke ill of friends and enemies alike;
90 That ‘perhaps Critias writes ironically’ was suggested by Harriott (1969), 138. 91 Minchin (2002), 84–6 (with further references) regards repetition and ring composition as pragmatic moves of any rebuke ‘in the real world or in Homer’. As it has come down to us, Critias’ rebuke lacks the characteristic elements pointed out by Minchin, namely initial addressee and a Wnal call to action or amends. 92 Cassio (1984) and Rosen (2007a), 250 emphasize Critias’ concern with Archilochus’ imputation of blameworthy behaviour to himself rather than with the behaviour itself. 93 It is not clear whether the expression E K ÆFŁÆ means that Archilochus became an enemy to the natives or to the Parian colonists (admittedly, a gap in the colonial narrative (Dougherty (1993), 29 n. 39)). In what follows I assume the reference is to the fellow colonists.
306
Perceptions of Iambos
5. he was adulterous; 6. he was lecherous and violent; 7. he threw away his shield. Archilochus’ extant fragments support Critias’ criticism. They contain derogatory references to Paros (116W) and Thasos (21W, 22W), mockery and criticism of his own friends (e.g. Glaucus), abuse of his enemies (e.g. Lycambes), Wrst-person expression of sexual desire and explicit accounts of sexual encounters (e.g. 118W, 119W, 196aW). Furthermore, the elegiac poem on the abandonment of the shield (5W) was famous in antiquity from as early as Aristophanes.94 Hence, there can be little doubt that Critias’ accusations rest on information drawn from Archilochus’ poems.95 Some details perhaps derive from a biography of Archilochus, if one was in the process of developing already in the Wfth century bce.96 Critias’ purpose, however, was to blame Archilochus. To achieve it he took the poems as expression of the poet’s own feelings, opinions, and experiences. Such biographical interpretation of the poetic ‘I’ was not exceptional in antiquity; quite the contrary, it was the rule. Applied to Archilochus’ poems such reading results in his self-incrimination. Yet Critias was doubtless familiar with poets and performers adopting Wctional personalities, particularly in the case of sympotic poetry. Most probably, he was aware of the possibility of impersonation by a performer, or of the conventional biographical interpretation of a performer’s Wrst person, as well as of the advantages of playing with both. Therefore, there is a need to revise the assumption that the poems used by Critias all testify to the poet’s self-vituperation. Some poems may have been intentionally interpreted as such by Critias—and as a consequence, unintentionally by later readers of Critias, who miss his intention and wit. 94 Although Archilochus 139W may have treated the topic of ÞØłÆ Æ in trochaic tetrameters (Kerkhecker (1996), cf. Adesp. Iamb. 38), Critias was probably referring to the better known fr. 5W. The fact that this poem was composed in elegiacs stands against an assumption that Critias speaks of Archilochus’ blame poetry as represented in his iambic poems. For a study of sources, see Correˆa (1998), 110–33. 95 Jurenka (1900), 3; Rankin (1977), 12; Lefkowitz (1981), 26. 96 Momigliano (1993), 27; Tarditi (1956); Marcaccini (2001), 83–93. Po`rtulas (2006) points to the role of professional rhapsodes in the consolidation of a biographical paradigm of interpretation.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
307
The point best illustrating the possibility that Critias deliberately misinterpreted the poems’ ‘I’ is the reference to Archilochus’ mother. An interesting alternative interpretation of the reference to Enipo was put forward by Welcker in 1816. He suggested that Critias could have mistaken a personiWcation of invective (KØ, ‘rebuke, abuse’) as a reference to Archilochus’ real mother.97 Archilochus thus may have said ‘I am the child of Abuse’.98 Perhaps there was no misunderstanding by Critias, if the identiWcation of Enipo as Archilochus’ mother was part of a myth about a ‘popular (i.e. ‘demotic’) Archilochus’ regardless of his aristocratic origins, as Gallavotti proposed.99 Critias may have simply been referring to it. Similarly, poverty and lack of resources as Archilochus’ motivation for joining the Parian colonization of Thasos are certainly quite in tune with the type of
97 Welcker (1844) (orig. edn.: 1816), 1.79; Gallavotti (1949), 144 suggests that the detail about the slave-woman Enipo may derive from a mime. Tarditi (1956) puts forward the hypothesis that Enipo is the name of a priestess: ¯Ø , tessalica divinita` delle acque’. Kontoleon (1964), 78 suggests that Critias could have worked from the word Ł æÅ, which he takes to mean a slave-woman. West (1974), 28 links ¯Ø to ¯Ø, invective, and takes it as a nomen Wctum. Several scholars consider the possibility of a non-biographical Enipo (e.g. Van Sickle (1975), 151; Nagy (1976), 201; (1979), 247; Lefkowitz (1981), 26; Brown (1988), 481). A metaphorical Enipo is usually linked to Archilochus’ own poetics, or to the issue of real vs. stock-characters, whereas the implications of a possibly intentional misinterpretation by Critias (suggested already by Bossi (1990), 59) have not been suYciently explored. 98 Jurenka (1900), 3; Lefkowitz (1981), 26. There are three possible interpretations for the phrase ‘I am the son of Enipo’: (a) Enipo is a slave-woman, real or Wctional. Hence either Archilochus was a bastard or was playing a role as a bastard, in which case Critias mistakenly took it biographically. (b) Enipo is a priestess, Archilochus’ real mother of foreign, though not servile, origins. (c) Enipo is a metaphor for invective, in which case Critias mistakenly or deliberately took it literally. It seems, therefore, that a discussion on real vs. Wctional characters in archaic poems must take into account the following possibilities: (a) that references are to real people by their real names; (b) that references are to real people by Wctive names; (c) that references are to Wctional characters; (d) that references are metaphorical or the personiWcation of concepts. 99 Gallavotti (1949), 140 and 151; Wilson (2003), 196
308
Perceptions of Iambos
persona sometimes adopted by iambic poets,100 but strikingly at odds with Archilochus’ belonging to one of the families that founded the Parian colony in Thasos and probably holding hereditary religious posts—of which Critias must have had some knowledge. It seems that Critias deliberately ignored the context and the purpose of some of the statements he found in Archilochus’ poems.101 If he misinterpreted, perhaps deliberately, the reference to Enipo, could not some of his other accusations be of the same sort? A comparison of Critias’ allegations with rhetorical slander (ØÆ º) points in that direction. Remarkably, many of his arguments correspond to the topics prescribed by rhetorical handbooks and illustrated by Greek orators.102 Su¨ss, whose study on the stock themes of invective is still fundamental, lists the following ten rhetorical topics of diabole: 1. being a slave or the son of a slave or slave-woman; 2. not being of Greek origin; imputations of alien status ( Æ); 3. being engaged in a dishonourable occupation (e.g. teacher, actor); 4. being a thief or a similar criminal; 5. being subject to reproach for sexual matters (e.g. prostitution, incest, adultery, eVeminacy); 6. being a misophilos, ‘friends-hater’ (Ø çغ, including mistreatment and assassination of parents) or misopolis, ‘polishater’ (Ø ºØ); 7. sullenness (ŒıŁæø
Å); 8. having prominent faults in physical appearance or displaying eccentricity of dress; 9. being a shield-thrower (Þ łÆØ); 10. having wasted away one’s patrimony, being in Wnancial straits. 100 For the poet’s self-presentation taken as role-playing that functions as a generic feature in the iambic and satiric traditions, see Lavigne (2008) and Rosen (2007a), 243–8, esp. 245. 101 Wilson (2003), 196. 102 Su¨ss (1910), 245–67. Many of the texts on which Su¨ss based his study were composed at a later stage, but the conventional topics of invective appear already in Homer (e.g. Thersites’ speech, Il. 2.214–42; Melanthios’ speech, Od. 17.217–32), tragedy, and Old Comedy (Su¨ss (1910), 254–6; Koster (1980), 41–54, 62–71, 72–6). Later works on invective, such as Nisbet (1961), 192–7 and Koster (1980), 2 follow Su¨ss’s typology.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
309
Critias’ accusations display nearly all the categories of rhetorical diabole: Archilochus is a bastard, the son of a slave-woman (1), adulterous (5), misophilos and perhaps misopolis (6), has a Xawed character (7), threw away his shield (9), and left Paros out of poverty (10). If such a striking coincidence means, as Koster suggests, that Critias composed an invective against Archilochus according to rhetorical rules,103 the possibility that he deliberately misread the ‘poetic I’ for the sake of his argument gains conviction. I believe we can take Koster’s suggestion even further. For an Athenian audience in the second half of the Wfth century Critias’ rebuke involves more than rhetorical invective. Many of his accusations, such as adultery104 and slander, could have had a considerable eVect in the Athenian courts.105 Other charges could result in a loss of civic rights, such as an accusation of bastardy. This may not have been particularly dangerous in Archilochus’ time,106 but after the passing of Pericles’ law of citizenship of 451, by which a man could hold Athenian citizenship only if both parents were Athenian, it would mean exclusion from the citizen-body.107 Furthermore, the procedure for establishing suitability for oYce of newly elected oYcials and assembly speakers (the dokimasia) included questions regarding citizenship and military service, and an explicit enquiry whether someone threw away his shield.108 Throwing away one’s shield was not only one of the issues of dokimasia, and, as we have seen, a topic of rhetorical diabole, but it also corresponded to
103 Koster (1980), 55 suggests that Critias followed a rhetorical handbook for which, however, we have no evidence. 104 On the ªæÆçc Øå Æ, see MacDowell (1978), 124–5. Scafuro (1997), 474–6 argues that Øå means not only adulterer but also fornicator, i.e. seducer of an unmarried woman, and even rapist. In this sense Øå could allude to Archil. 196aW. 105 On the Athenian legislation against slander, see Lipsius (1912), 646–51; MacDowell (1978), 126–9; Osborne (1985); Fisher (1992), 36–85; Wallace (1993). Halliwell (1991a) oVers a thorough examination of the extant evidence for the particular case of comedy. 106 Bossi (1990), 58–9; Rankin (1975), 324 n. 5. 107 Ath. Pol. 26.4; Plu. Per. 37.3. On Pericles’ citizenship law, see Boegehold (1994) and de Ste. Croix (2004), 233–53 with further references. 108 Ath. Pol. 55.4; Aesch. 1.28–32; Dem. 22.30–2. On dokimasia see Ostwald (1986), 43–83; Wallace (1994), 127–8.
310
Perceptions of Iambos
one of the forbidden expressions (I ææÅ Æ) in the Athenian law of slander.109 Precisely what was forbidden was copiously used by orators and comedy writers.110 In the case of comedy, the festive context of performance and the assignment of much of the invective to Wctional characters granted poets freedom to ridicule named individuals, what elsewhere would have been inappropriate and even against the law.111 However, had anyone said in Critias’ Athens what Critias alleged that Archilochus said about himself, he would have been liable to prosecution, disqualiWed for oYce, and, if convicted, Wnally disenfranchised. Such legal implications are the background for Archilochus’ self-incrimination, so that Critias’ allegations, as judged by his contemporaries, completely delegitimize Archilochus. A comparison with pseudo-Xenophon’s Constitution of the Athenians, also known as the Old Oligarch, can shed light on the purpose of this delegitimization. The Constitution of the Athenians is a short text against democracy usually dated between 431 and 413 bce. Of unknown authorship, it was transmitted under Xenophon’s name, an attribution already contested in antiquity.112 Critias is one of the proposed authors, 109 The Athenian law of slander forbade a number of speciWc expressions (I ææÅ Æ): Iæç (murderer), Æ æƺ Æ (father-beater), Å æº Æ (mother-beater), and Þ łÆØ (shield-thrower); the list was probably longer (see Lys. 10.2–11, 11.4 V.; cf. Isoc. 20.3 and Dem. 8.123 for passing allusions to forbidden expressions). The I ææÅ Æ known to us aVect more than someone’s reputation; they are all terms that involved accusations that could legally be punished by the death penalty or by atimia, the loss of civic rights (Su¨ss (1910), 251 and 254; Lipsius (1912), 648; Wallace (1993), 117; cf. Dem. 24.103–7). Prosecution was therefore possible for these allegations, and if they were proved to be false the penalty on conviction was 500 drachmas (Isoc. 20.3; Lys. 10.12 or 22; Dem. 21.88: a thousand drachmas for two persons, cf. Lipsius (1912), 651 n. 56) and disenfranchisement for the abuse of one of the archons (Lys. 9.6–10; Dem. 21.32–3). The defendant, however, could be acquitted if he showed he had spoken the truth (Lys. 10.30; Dem. 23.50). 110 An accusation of ÞØłÆ Æ, problematic in real life, is a favourite topic of abuse in Old Comedy (e.g. Ar. Nu. 352–3), and becomes a literary topos (cf. Alcaeus 428a, Anacreon 381b)—perhaps one made fashionable by Archilochus himself (Ewen Bowie, personal communication). See Halliwell (1991a), 51–4 for allusions to shield-discarding in Old Comedy; Dover (1974), 30–3 for the topics of invective shared by Old Comedy and oratory, and Nisbet and Hubbard (1978), 113 for a survey of the tradition of this literary topos. 111 A thorough examination of evidence on the restriction on comedy’s OÆ d Œøfiø E in Halliwell (1991a). 112 Demetrius was against Xenophon’s authorship (DL 2.57).
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
311
along with Xenophon, Thucydides, and Antiphon.113 It is not my purpose to discuss the authorship of the pamphlet, but to highlight the many correspondences between the criticism of democracy in the Old Oligarch and the accusations levelled by Critias against Archilochus.114 Indeed, the Old Oligarch states personal proWt as the real motivation of the partisans of democracy for wanting to hold oYce (1.3–4). It associates democracy with wickedness, disorder (Åæ Æ, I Æ Æ, 1.5), and lack of obedience to the laws (1.8), and Wnds poverty ( Æ, 1.5) a driving force towards what is shameful (Kd
a ÆNåæ, 1.5). The Old Oligarch opposes the tolerance of public abuse of the wealthy and well-born (2.18)115 and ends with concern for disenfranchisement (I Ø Æ, 3.12). All these indicate an ideological aYnity between our passage and this anti-democratic pamphlet. This aYnity is not enough to argue in favour of Critias’ authorship, for similar points appear in most anti-democratic writing.116 They do suggest, however, that both our passage and the Old Oligarch come from the same elite circle and targeted a similar audience.117 If ‘how to criticize democracy’ was a central problem for classical Athenian intellectuals, as Ober suggests,118 Critias found an original way to deal with it, by criticizing Archilochus for what he was in Wfth-century Athens: a democratic icon. That Critias’ criticism involved class ideology, in which Archilochus came to represent a popular stance, was succinctly suggested by Blumenthal in a study of 1922.119 Indeed, some of Archilochus’ 113 The hypothesis that Critias was the author of the Constitution of the Athenians was sustained by Bo¨ckh (1851), Fuks (1954), and Canfora (1980), which I have not seen. See Leduc (1976), 50–2 and Iannucci (2002), 25 for these and further references. 114 Bultrighini (1999), 33 qualiWes the Constitution of the Athenians as an ‘eco banalizzante e settoriale rispetto a una visione sistematica e articolata come quella di Crizia’. 115 Œøfiø E Æs ŒÆd ŒÆŒH ºª Ø e b B PŒ KHØ, ¥Æ c ÆP d IŒøØ ŒÆŒH N fi Æ b Œ º ıØ, Y ØÆ º ÆØ, s N
‹ Ø Påd F ı K d Pb
F ºŁı › Œøfiø ‰ Kd e º, Iºº j ºØ j ª ÆE j ı . . . (Ath. 2.18). 116 See Ober (1998) for an analysis of the Old Oligarch as representative of antidemocratic dissent. 117 Iannucci (2002), 25–6. 118 Ober (1998), 50. 119 Blumenthal (1922), 6: ‘Die ganze Furchtbarkeit der athenischen AuXo¨sungszeit entspringt ja gerade dem Selbstherrlichwerden der Niederen und der niederen Instinkte: diese Gruppen mochten sich wohl auf Archilochos, den Sklavinnensohn, als ihren Ahnen berufen. Nicht minder als die niedere Herkunft musste dem Kritias
312
Perceptions of Iambos
poems could be reinterpreted as subversion of conventional or predominant ideologies, and gain a new meaning in their re-performance in Wfth-century Athens. Names such as Glaucus, Pericles, and Pisistratus, often mentioned in Archilochus’ poetry, probably contributed to making such re-enactment possible. The rejection of tyranny in fragment 19W must have been eVective for ‘democratic re-performance’. Many, as Aristotle did, must have known the Wrst words by heart: ‘I don’t care about the possessions of Gyges . . . I do not desire tyranny . . .’.120 The lines exalting a short general over the tall and elegant one, one of the poems by Archilochus that the ancients cited more often, could also be eVective in re-performance.121 A democratic use of Archilochus’ poems may have been especially eVective when both Paros and Thasos, ruled by democracies, were members of the Delian League (that is, until 411 bce).122 It is not diYcult to grasp how Archilochus could have become a cultural icon for partisans of democracy. The performance of Cratinus’ Archilochuses (between 435 and 423 bce) possibly played a role in fashioning Archilochus as a champion of the people in their stand als Erben attischer Kalokagathie die Blossstellung aller Pudenda widerstehen—am meisten jener beru¨hmte Schildverlust.’ Lanata (1963), 222: ‘. . . Crizia . . . vedeva in Archiloco un pericoloso portavoce ed interprete dei sentimenti e delle concezioni di vita dei democratici suoi cotemporanei . . .’. Gallavotti (1949), 140 and 151, spoke of a myth of a popular (i.e. demotic) Archilochus, and according to Momigliano (1969), 151, Archilochus was, for Critias, ‘il prototipo del plebeo maleducato’. See also Bossi (1990), 57–9 and Wilson (2003), 196. 120 h Ø a ˆª ø F ºıåæı º Ø, P xº ÇBº, P IªÆ ÆØ Ł H æªÆ, ªºÅ PŒ Kæø ıæÆ I æŁ ªæ K Ø OçŁÆºH KH. (Archil. 19W) 121 P çغø ªÆ æÆ Åªe Pb ØÆ ºØª Pb æåØØ ªÆFæ P ıæÅ, Iºº Ø ØŒæ Ø YÅ ŒÆd æd ŒÆ N E ÞØŒ , Içƺø ÅŒg , ŒÆæ Å ºø. (Archil. 114W) Cf. the ridicule of the arrogant Lamachus in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (David Konstan, personal communication). 122 In the 440s Paros and Thasos were paying tribute to Athens. Democratic government in both places ceased in 411 bce (Diod. 13.47, Thuc. 88.64).
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
313
against the old aristocracy. As we have seen in section 2 of this chapter, it seems that the comedy, though the evidence is fragmentary, depicted a dispute of Archilochus with Homer and Hesiod that probably had to do with the genres and values that the poets represented; Archilochus standing for straightforward language, perhaps for freedom of speech, and for a down-to-earth stance against epic and aristocratic values. It is that contemporary image of a ‘demotic Archilochus’ which Critias ultimately wanted to undermine. Indeed, mentioning a slave mother123 and boasting about having lost his shield, as well as citing poverty as motivation for heading to Thasos—not the pursuit of a common good, an outstanding democratic principle in Pericles’ idealized funerary speech of 431/430 bce (Thuc. 2.35–46)—all appeal to democratic sentiment. Thus his invective attempts to delegitimize Archilochus by portraying him as unWt to represent the very values he was taken to stand for. But Critias’ invective has yet an additional dimension. The implied contempt for poverty and the underlying values of kalokagathia124 disclose a clear aristocratic stance. Archilochus emerges from Critias’ invective as an oligarch deprived of the right to inherit land because of his slave-mother, and forced therefore to join a colonizing project (as many Athenians did due to Pericles’ citizenship law),125 an oligarch who did not get along with his fellow colonists, nor with his own circle of philoi. Thus he would be an aristocrat pretending to be a democrat and failing in both. This image is consistent with a criticism found in the Old Oligarch of those who not belonging to the demos yet support the democratic cause,126 a passage often taken as referring to Pericles, Cleon, or Alcibiades.127 Could it be that Archilochus’ name, perhaps understood as a nom parlant (e.g. ‘the leader of a body of foot soldiers’ as
123 Comic poets often directed charges of foreign birth against Cleon, Cleophon, and Hyperbolus (Connor (1971), 169–71 with further references). 124 Bultrighini (1999), 154–60 surveys the ‘obsessive presence’ in Critias’ fragments of the aristocratic code of loyalty towards one’s friends (see also p. 158 n. 398 on the diVerent treatment of friends and enemies). 125 Boegehold (1994), 61. 126 ŒÆd PÆ ª ı ØØ, Z ‰ IºÅŁH F ı, c çØ P Å ØŒ NØ (Ath. 2.19). 127 Kalinka (1913), 252; Frisch (1942), 285.
314
Perceptions of Iambos
opposed to equestrian troops)128 served Critias as a nickname for the type of demagogue, or even for a speciWc contemporary? As we have seen in the preceding section, according to an anecdote transmitted by Athenaeus, there is reason to suspect that the name Archilochus may have been used as an insult in the last quarter of the Wfth century bce. It is, therefore, possible that the use of Archilochus’ name as a sophisticated insult directed at someone abusive does go back to Gorgias. In a similar way, several historical Wgures could be targeted under Archilochus’ guise in our passage. Alcibiades, notorious for supporting the demos out of convenience and for his abusive style, is of course the Wrst who comes to mind.129 According to Plutarch (Alc. 1.3) Alcibiades had a speech defect and pronounced ‘r’ as ‘l’. It would be enough to pronounce ‘Alchi-lochus’ for the audience to think of ‘Alci-biades’.130 Appropriate candidates for Critias’ criticism can also be found among the ‘New Politicians’ active in Athens after Pericles’ death (429 bce), who were perceived as nouveaux riches. The passage mentioned above (Aelian, VH 10.17 ¼ B 45 DK)131 in which Critias criticizes Cleon for deriving excessive proWt from public life, is indicative of the hostility between Critias and Cleon. Cleon is noted as being the Wrst who used abuse (KºØæÆ ) in the assembly, and as most violent ( ØÆØ
Æ ),132 a man who made the most unusual political gesture of repudiating his friends.133 Cleophon, responsible for Critias’ exile, is an interesting alternative134 because he was accused of having a Thracian mother.135 What is more, Cleophon used Solon’s elegies in order to criticize Critias as licentious (I ºª),136 to which Wilson suggests that Critias replied 128 Cf. LSJ s.v. º å I, 3, b. I am grateful to one of Classical Philology’s anonymous readers for the suggestion. 129 Plu. Alc. 10.3, 14.4. 130 Richard Martin, personal communication. 131 See n. 81 above. 132 Kd F Æ IŒæƪ ŒÆd KºØæÆ ŒÆd æØÇø KÅŪ æÅ (Ath. Pol. 28.3), ØÆØ
Æ H ºØ H fiH fiø . . . ØŁÆ Æ (Thuc. 3.36.6, cf. ØÆ ººø Thuc. 5.16.1). See Connor (1971), 133 n. 85 for further similar ancient descriptions of Cleon. 133 Plu. Moralia 806f. See Connor (1971), 91–4 for Cleon’s repudiation of his friends as departing from traditional politics, based on links of philia. 134 Xen. Hell. 2.3.15, 36; Arist. Rh. 1375b32; see Bossi (1990), 59. 135 Pl. Com., esp. fr. 60; Ar. Ra. 679–81. 136 Arist. Rh. 1375b32 ¼ A 8 DK. On Critias’ family connections with Solon, see A 2 DK.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
315
by calling Cleophon a ‘lyre-string-seller’ (åæºÅ).137 At any rate, whether Critias’ criticism targeted the demagogue as a type or a speciWc individual, it is probably best seen as an ingenious literary retort to someone who made use of Archilochus or his poems for ideological promotion or in a personal attack. Where could Critias’ piece have been originally performed? A symposion of a hetaireia is probably the most suitable occasion for expressing anti-democratic views138 through an invective against Archilochus.139 Symposia, as Ober phrases it, provided ‘an alternative to the public space of the polis’ in which such dissident views could be expressed.140 Bultrighini, Iannucci, and Wilson have recently set Critias’ surviving poems in the context of the symposion while at the same time showing how the symposion as a theme is part of a broad and consistent ideological position.141 To be sure, a similar context was also proposed for the Old Oligarch, a text in which we Wnd many aYnities with Critias’ criticism.142 A circle of philoi who shared Critias’ values and could appreciate the wit of a deliberate misinterpretation of Archilochus’ poems or biography seems the best audience for our piece. The possibility that originally it was a poem that Aelian, or his source, paraphrased in prose suits such a function and occasion very well.143 137 Poll. 7.154 (¼B 67 DK); Wilson (2003), 201 n. 33. Critias’ fondness of compounds with –seller (Poll. 7.196–7 (¼B 70 DK)) insinuates aristocratic contempt for an entire class. 138 Ober (1998), 45. On the political signiWcance of symposion and hetaireia in classical Greece, see Connor (1971); Murray (1980), 197–203; (1983). 139 Tentatively suggested by Rankin (1975), 333: ‘. . . it is not surprising that Critias took the opportunity, in perhaps some symposiastic context (as the rhetorical Xavour of the fragment might hint) or possibly in the æd ç ø æø j Iæ H, to stigmatize the ancient poet as a mere lecher.’ 140 Ober (1998), 45. Non-elite symposia of the type suggested by Fisher (2000) are a plausible context for the modelling of Archilochus as a democratic icon (I am grateful to one of Classical Philology’s anonymous readers for the perceptive reference). 141 Bultrighini (1999); Iannucci (2002) (with no reference to our passage); Wilson (2003). 142 Kalinka (1913), 57. Kalinka’s proposition was strongly rejected by Frisch (1942), 101, 187, who terms it a ‘perverted theory’, but was tacitly recovered by Ober (1998), 45 and explicitly by Iannucci (2002), 25. 143 It would be possible to further speculate that the piece was a section preceding Critias’ fragment on Anacreon (B 1 DK ¼ 1W; the Anacreon piece opens with ). In Wilson’s terms, both Anacreon and Archilochus would be part of the ‘ideological
316
Perceptions of Iambos
The piece was probably composed and performed in the 420s, after Pericles had delivered his famous funerary oration of 431/430, and Cratinus’ Archilochuses had had its day on the stage—two landmarks for the public expression of democratic ideology and Archilochus’ role in it—possibly after Gorgias’ Wrst visit to Athens in 427 bce but before Cleon’s death in 422 bce; at a time when Critias was still a ‘quiet Athenian’144 and could recline at a symposion and playfully (or cynically?) accommodate Alcibiades’ iambic name in an elegiac poem.145 To sum up, Critias used his rhetorical skills and literary knowledge in invective against Archilochus, an icon of democracy in Wfthcentury Athens, particularly after the performance of Cratinus’ Archilochuses. In this invective the name ‘Archilochus’ may have functioned as a nickname for the demagogue as a type or for a speciWc contemporary of Critias. The original piece may have been a dactylic poem146 clothed in the language of prosecution, that used Archilochus’ poems in tune with elite ideology, as a means to undermine his value as a democratic model. A circle of philoi gathered in a symposion could have been an audience sympathetic to and appreciative of Critias’ wit.
struggle over the meaning and manner of being Ionian’ (Wilson (2003), 192–3). This would support an old hypothesis that Critias composed a hexametrical work on poets, æd ØÅ H (‘On Poets’), æd ØÅ H ŒÆd çH (‘On Poets and Wisemen’, Lanata (1963), 218), or æd æåغ åı ŒÆd ÆŒæ (‘On Archilochus and Anacreon’, Gudeman (1934), 10). Blumenthal (1923), 23 suggested that the Anacreon piece perhaps stems from a longer poem on symposiastic poets. 144 Carter (1986), 74. 145 ŒÆd F ˚º Ø ı ıƒe ŁÅÆE çÆø ºŒØ ØÅ ØØ Æ æ Ø P ªæ ø q h KçÆæ Ç Ø Kº ª øØ, F K NÆ øØ Œ ÆØ PŒ I æø. (Hephaestion, Enchiridion 2, 3 ¼ fr. 4W, see Ch. 7, sect. 3). Bowie (2001a), 5 suggests that the poem was composed about 430 bce. See Wilson (2003), 198 for the mockepinician tone of the elegy, Lapini (1995), 122 for more serious political allusions, and Iannucci (2002), 37–44 for a reading of the elegy as direct aggression. Iannucci further suggests that the elegy involves invective under epinician disguise. 146 i.e. composed either in elegiacs or hexameters. The latter suits the hypothesis mentioned above that the piece might belong together with the Anacreon poem.
Archilochus as a Prototype of Invective
317
Throughout antiquity writers used Wgures from the past such as Theseus, Themistocles, or Alexander in order to support political or moral stances,147 and poets were not exempt from such tendentious reinterpretation. Although Critias 44 DK is of undeniable value as a testimony for the reception of Archilochus, it cannot be used as straightforward evidence for Archilochus as a poet of blame. Indeed, the passage speaks more of Critias’ own ideology than about Archilochus’ life and poetic work.
6 . A RC H I LO C H U S A S R E P R E S E N TAT I V E OF INVECTIVE In a period in which the term iambos appears detached from notions related to abuse, that is to say, up to Plato’s Laws, our sources show that Archilochus was held as a prototype of invective poetry (Pind. P. 2.52–5). This perception, however, was not a single-sided one. Indeed, Archilochus was also known as the author of a praise song (Pind. O. 9.1–5), as a character of Athenian comedy (Cratinus’ Archilochuses, Alexis’ Archilochus, Diphilus’ Sappho), and as a Wgure deserving honour though in need of legitimatization in Paros (Alcidamas, ap. Ar. Rh. 1398b11–12, Mnesiepes inscription). His name was used as a sophisticated term of abuse (Hermippus, ap. Ath. 505d–e), and in Athens Archilochus also functioned as a democratic icon that could be delegitimized by use and misuse of his poetry (Critias 44 DK). Amid the complexity of the image of Archilochus and the interests involved in promoting one of its aspects, abuse emerges as a constant in our sources, at the expense of the thematic and functional variety of Archilochus’ poetry.148 Towards the end of the fourth century bce the dominant feature of Archilochus as archetype of invective poetry emerges also as dominant feature of iambos as a genre. This transition is signalled by the joint appearance 147 e.g. McInerney (1994); Stoneman (2004). I am grateful to Jeremy McInerney and Sylvie Honigman for these references. 148 The gradual restriction of Archilochus to invective poetry is similar to that of Homer to the Iliad and the Odyssey, cf. Graziosi (2002), 4.
318
Perceptions of Iambos
of Archilochus and Hipponax in Diphilus’ Sappho, which indicates that they were perceived as members of a group. In the next chapter we shall examine the Wnal stage in this process, in sources that, from Plato onwards, link iamboi with invective within speciWc legal, educational, and philosophical contexts. In October 2005 an international conference on the archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades was held in Paroikia under the title ‘Archilochus and his Age’.149 Needless to say, the organizers were marvellous hosts. The event combined learned scholarship with abundant commensality and conviviality. The mayor of Paros held a reception, lectures were simultaneously translated into Greek or English, and the public included members of the community as well as classical scholars from all over Greece. The events were held in the ‘Archilochos Hall’, and the ‘Archilochos Society’, which has been enriching Paros’ cultural life for more than thirty years, was responsible for the hospitality no less than the ‘Paros and Cyclades Institute of Archaeology’. On the last night there was a musical performance of Archilochus’ poems. A local poet and musician, Mr Nikos Sarris, adapted some of Archilochus’ fragments into modern Greek and set them to music, while JeVrey Carson read English translations of the poems.150 The songs were performed by solo singers accompanied by a chorus of local men and women. This was a musical and poetic performance by the community and for the community. Of course, everyone involved in the conference and related events gained something, be it political prestige, knowledge, entertainment, networking, a free meal. However, during that last night’s performance a feeling that had been building up from the beginning of the conference became for me a certainty: in Paros today Archilochus is very much alive. Something that cannot be described by a word other than sacred pervades his memory in the island up to the present day. He is still honoured, and the surviving texts are only part of the reason.
149 The proceedings are published in Katsonopoulou, Petropoulos, and Katsarou (2008). 150 Cf. Archilochos’ Beloved Paros, written and directed by Yannis Tritsimbidas, with music by Nikos Sarris (2006).
11 Invective as the Dominant Feature of Iambos As we have seen thus far, before the Hellenistic period ancient sources link the term iambos to a range of notions, such as jesting, mockery, vituperation, and obscenity. In addition, iambos is the name of a type of rhythm and perhaps also the name of a melody. Furthermore, iambic poems are referred to or cited for a number of purposes: for the sake of factual information (Herodotus’ reference to Archilochus), of comic parody (Aristophanes’ citation of Hipponax), and as an example of rhetorical abuse (Aristotle’s citations of Archilochus). In spite of this variety, from the second half of the fourth century bce on iambos came to be explicitly identiWed with a speciWc type of content and function, namely abuse, often linked to obscenity (expressed by the cluster of psogos, loidoria, kakegoria, aischrologia, etc.). This dominant aspect was taken as the deWning feature by later sources, particularly educational ones. It is my contention that the perception of Archilochus played a major role in the process of selection and reduction of the elements relevant for the categorization of iambos. Indeed, as I showed in the previous chapter, before the notion of iambos was restricted to the dominant feature of abuse, it was the prototype of the genre, Archilochus, who was taken to be predominantly abusive, at the expense of the thematic and functional variety of his poetry. It is time now to examine the stage at which the perception of iambos as mainly abusive crystallized.
320
Perceptions of Iambos 1. I A MB O S A N D T H E R I D I C U L E O F C I TI Z E N S (P L. LG. 9 3 5 E )
In previous chapters I discussed the implications of the reference to iambos in Plato’s regulations for his ideal city (Lg. 935e) for our understanding of the contexts and manner of performance of iamboi (Chapters 8 and 9). Before we examine what the passage says about the contents and language expected from the genre, it will be helpful to look at it again. ØÅ fi B c Œøfiø Æ X Ø N ø j ıH ºfiø Æ c K ø º ªfiø NŒ Ø, ŁıfiH ¼ ı ŁıF, ÅÆH ÅÆ H ºØ H Œøfiø E Ka Ø I ØŁfi B, f IŁºŁ Æ K æª Ø KŒ B åæÆ e ÆæÆ ÆPŁÅ æ , j ÇÅØFŁÆØ ÆE æØd ƒ æÆE F Ł F y i Iªg fi q. A poet of comedy or of any of the iamboi or of the Muses’ song must not be allowed to ridicule any of the citizens in any way, neither in narration nor in impersonation, neither with nor without anger. If anyone ever disobeys, the competition oYcials must drive him away altogether from the country that very day, or be Wned three minae, dedicated to the god whose contest is being held.
This restriction on the words and actions of poetry presented in public performances follows a general law proposed earlier on: ‘Concerning abuse (kakegoria) there shall be this one law to cover all cases: No one shall abuse anyone’1 ( x c æd ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ ø æd Æ ‹ ÅÆ ŒÆŒÅªæ ø Å , Lg. 934e2–4). It is, therefore, in the context of a law against kakegoria, ‘slander’, that Plato refers to iambos as a genre that might potentially ridicule citizens. In a wide sense kakegoria means ‘vituperation’, ‘ill-speaking’, notions that can be rendered in classical Greek also by the terms loidoria (ºØæ Æ), blasphemia ( ºÆçÅ Æ), hybris (o æØ), psogos (ł ª), and oneidos (Z Ø). Some of these terms, however, have additional meanings besides that of ‘abuse’ and ‘vituperation’. Oneidos, for example, is used for ‘reproach’ and ‘rebuke’. Blasphemia, as we have seen in Chapter 10, section 3, is used for ‘defamation’ in the same way as kakegoria, but it can also mean ‘insult’, whereas in religious 1 Translated by Bury (1967).
Invective as the Dominant Feature
321
contexts it has the meaning of ‘irreverent speech’. Finally, as a legal term hybris covers physical outrage in general, whereas kakegoria covers verbal outrage. In fourth-century forensic contexts the term kakegoria is used for the more speciWc notion of ‘false allegation’, ‘defamation’, and ‘calumny’. Does our passage legislate against kakegoria in the general sense of ‘vituperation’ and ‘insult’ or in the more speciWc juridical sense of ‘false allegations’?2 A brief survey of Athenian legislation on slander will help us address this question.3 Solon was credited by several sources with a law against speaking ill of the dead, which was probably still in force in the fourth century bce.4 The earliest extant allusion to an Athenian law of slander appears in Aristophanes’ Wasps 1206–7 (of 422 bce).5 Later, fourth-century orators refer to a special prohibition of verbal abuse (ºØæ E) of magistrates in their oYcial capacity.6 As we have seen in Chapter 10, in a speech from 338–336 bce Hypereides refers to a law forbidding abuse of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, whether in speech or in song (Phil. 3).7 Three prosecutions under the law of slander (ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ ŒÅ) are mentioned by Lysias (10.12, of 384/3 2 Lipsius (1912), 649 suggested that the expressions ŒÆŒÅªæ E, ŒÆŒH ºª Ø, ŒÆŒH Iªæ Ø are used in this period in a strict legal sense, whereas ºØæ E, ºÆçÅ E, and ŒÆŒºª E are used in the less strict sense of vituperation. Halliwell (1991a), 50 n. 8, however, is against discerning a legally material distinction between ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ and ºØæ Æ, particularly for Laws 934–5. In the context of our discussion it seems to me that ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ, ºØæ Æ, ºÆçÅ Æ, and even ÆNå溪 Æ are by and large interchangeable. 3 On Athenian legislation against slander see Lipsius (1912), 646–51; MacDowell (1978), 126–9; Osborne (1985), 40–58; Fisher (1992), 36–85; Wallace (1993). Halliwell (1991a), 48–70 oVers a thorough examination of the extant evidence for the particular case of comedy. On freedom of speech in ancient Athens, see Saxonhouse (2006), 85–99. 4 Dem. 20.104 and cf. 40.49 (355 bce and 347 bce respectively); Plu. Sol. 21.1–2; cf. Hyp. F 100 Kenyon. 5 ‹ e æÆ *ߺº J ÆØ Ø xº ØŒø ºØæ Æ łÅçE ıE.
6 Lysias 9.6–10, 16; Dem. 21.32–3, 79–81, 83; 20.104; [Xen.], Const. 2.18; Plu. Sol. 81. 7 ØŁ ‹ Ø K fiø ªæłÆ › B I E ºª Ø K EÆØ [Å d] ŒÆŒH <æ Ø ŒÆd <æØ ª Æ fi pÆ[Ø K]d a ŒÆŒ Æ:fi w ŒÆd Ø K Ø, N f b f æª ı › B Pb ŁıŁ Ø fiþ E K EÆØ ŒÆŒH N E, f b çø
e B ŒÆŒH ºª Ø.
322
Perceptions of Iambos
bce) and Demosthenes (21.81, of 348/7 bce).8 As we have seen in Chapter 10, section 5, the law forbade a number of speciWc expressions (I ææÅ Æ): Iæç (murderer), Æ æƺ Æ (father-beater), Å æº Æ (mother-beater), and Þ łÆØ (shield thrower);9 the list was probably longer. The forbidden expressions known to us aVect more than someone’s reputation: they are all terms involving accusations that could legally be punished by the death penalty or by atimia, the loss of civic rights.10 Prosecution was therefore possible for these allegations, and if they were proved to be false the penalty on conviction was 500 drachmas,11 as well as disenfranchisement in the case of abuse of one of the archons.12 The defendant, however, could be acquitted if he showed he had spoken the truth.13 Thus, regarding kakegoria in the juridical sense, the question whether the allegation was true or false was a critical one. The Athenian law against slander seems to be the background against which our passage should be interpreted. However, a closer look into the broader context of Laws 935e will show that Plato uses the term kakegoria in a rather diVerent sense. Plato’s law against slander (Lg. 934e2–4) comes after a discussion on theft and violence (933e–934c), in a section about madness. Various reasons are stated for madness. In some cases it is caused by illness, in others it is the eVect that anger (Øa ŁıF) might have on a bad temperament (ŒÆŒc çØ). When Wghting, people thus aVected often resort to shouting and insults (ººc çøc ƒ ŒÆŒH Iºººı ºÆçÅF ºªıØ, 934d6–e1). This behaviour is further described as involving curses (ŒÆ å ŁÆØ, 934e8), insults (Ø ÆNåæH O ø, 934e9), and utterances typical of women 8 Four additional cases appear in the hypotheses of Lysias, P.Oxy. 2537. 9 Lys. 10.2–11, 11.4 V.; cf. Isoc. 20.3 and Dem. 8.123 for passing allusions to aporrheta. 10 Lipsius (1912), 648; Wallace (1993), 117; cf. Dem. 24.103–7. Dem. 57.30, from 346/5 bce, mentions the prohibition of abusing a citizen for working in the agora. It has been suggested that the forbidden expressions may have also been connected to the dokimasia, the scrutiny of candidates standing for oYce in order to ascertain whether or not they were eligible, an interrogation which included questions as to whether they mistreated their parents or failed to perform their military service (Aesch. 1.28–32, Dem. 22.30–32; cf. Wallace (1993), 118–22). 11 Isoc. 20.3; Lys. 10.12; Dem. 21.88: a thousand drachmas for two persons, cf. Lipsius (1912), 651 n. 56. 12 Lys. 9.6–10; Dem. 21.32–3. 13 Lys. 10.30; Dem. 23.50.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
323
(ªıÆØŒ ı14 çÆ, 934e9–935a1). It is to deal with this type of behaviour that Plato introduces his law of slander (934e2–4). Thus, he is not as much concerned with the truth of allegations as with abusive language. He further focuses on the use of insults and obscenity in a range of public places: temples, sacriWces, public games, the agora, the court, and the assembly. Noticeably, coarse language is not considered only from the point of view of the victim of abuse, for it also has a negative psychological eVect on the person who utters the abuse. Abusive behaviour, including rude language, is referred to several times in this passage by the term loidoria (ºØæ Æ, 935c3, 9, 11), and it is also connected with what provokes laughter. Indeed, Plato remarks that when people Wght they tend to resort to saying something funny about their opponent ( Œ Æ Ø . . . N Ø ª ºE æd F KÆ ı çŁªª ŁÆØ, 935a1–b2). The discussion further deals with the topic of humour in relation to abuse. Although Plato acknowledges the amusing eVect of loidoria, he refuses to accept a distinction between ‘good-tempered’ (¼ ı ŁıF, fiH Æ Ç Ø, a ÆØØA) and ‘bad-tempered’ ( a ŁıF, fiH c Æ Ç Ø, ıfi B) abuse. Therefore, he also rejects the comic poets’ use of loidoria for the purposes of humour.15 Although Plato presents his prohibition in the context of a general law against slander, he is not strictly concerned with false allegations as such, but with the use of abusive language for the sake of humour
14 ‘Feminine’ or ‘eVeminate’? LSJ s.v. ªıÆØŒ E considers the latter interpretation to be ‘in malam partem’. I prefer to render it with the politically incorrect ‘typical of women’. 15 Plato’s prohibition does not apply to some types of playful compositions ‘about one another’ that were admitted earlier in the Laws (816 and 829), provided they have the approval of the oYcial in charge of education. At R. 395e–396 there is a similar connection between ŒÆŒÅªæ E, Œøfiø E and ÆNå溪 E in a discussion about ÅØ. At Laws 816d–e Plato argues that although it is impossible to learn the serious without the laughable, it is equally impossible to put both into practice. Thus he allows comic representations provided they are made by slaves or foreigners, and also if there is always something new in them (perhaps to avoid automatization, in terms of Russian Formalism). This type of mimesis must not be taken seriously and a free person must not learn it. At Laws 829 Plato admits the exchange of abuse (ł ª IºººØ) in contests at festivals. The poets, however, must be over 50 years old and have performed noble deeds. (Lg. 829 was discussed in Ch. 3, sect. 5.)
324
Perceptions of Iambos
and derision. This is suggested also by the verb used in our passage, komoidein (Œøfiø E), ‘make fun of, ridicule’, a verb used in Plato’s time for humour at the expense of somebody. Indeed, we Wnd the verb komoidein with a variety of grammatical objects: a group (Ar. Ach. 631, of a city), a person (Ar. Ran. 368; Cratin. 70.45 PCG: Pericles), and a person’s doctrine (e.g. Pl. Par. 128d), words (e.g. Pl. Symp. 193b6, d9), manner of speaking, or general behaviour. In komoidein there is no necessary connotation of slander or invective. The meaning of komoidein can be rendered also by Œ Ø, åº ıÇ Ø, ª ºA, and Æ Ç Ø, and their compounds, all of them in the sense of ‘ridicule, mock, jeer’. Both from the wider context of Plato’s prohibition and from the uses of komoidein it appears that what is banned from comedy and iamboi, and consequently, what was to some extent expected from them, is not kakegoria in the juridical sense of ‘false allegation’. What is banned is the ‘making fun’ of citizens by verbal ( º ªfiø) and visual means ( NŒ Ø), that is to say, by saying funny things about them or by impersonating them, their manner of speaking, opinions, and general behaviour.16 This is consistent with Plato’s concerns at Lg. 934d–e, not only with what is actually said, but also with the manner (e.g. shouting), purpose (e.g. derogatory), and context (e.g. a quarrel) in which it is said. Therefore, even though Plato’s prohibition of komoidein in comedy, iamboi, and lyric song is introduced as a law against slander (ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ ), this is not a law against ‘false allegations’, but against making citizens look bad, that is, damaging their reputation by any comic means, including jests, mocking impersonation, and abusive language. To sum up, iambos in Laws 935e is conceived by Plato as a genre that can involve ridicule of citizens and coarse language for derogatory purposes. These features appear not as speciWc to iamboi, but as shared by comedy and by those lyric genres that occasionally abuse identiWable individuals. In fact, Plato’s banishment of the genres that practise this type of abuse has to do with his theory of education and
16 Ewen Bowie (private communication) suggests to me an alternative, namely ‘literally’ and ‘metaphorically’, i.e. by images, as NŒ could mean mutual vituperation by comparisons. Cf. Ar. Av. 804 V.; Vesp. 1308 V.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
325
humour, and with the psychological eVects of abuse on both target and agent of derision. The banishment of the mocking or abusing poet from public festivals suggests that a hostile attitude to poetic genres resorting to abuse of named individuals as a comic technique developed not only in juridical contexts but also within theories of education and political organization.
2. I A MB O S A N D O B S C E N I T Y ( A R I S T. POL. 1 3 3 6 b ) Aristotle’s Poetics is a crucial witness for the consolidation of abuse as a dominant feature of iambos as a genre. I have shown in Chapter 3 that in Aristotle’s theoretical approach to the history of poetry iambos is located within the category of psogos, which, in turn, is construed as a macro-genre covering several types of literary compositions regardless of traditional generic distinctions. Furthermore, Aristotle seems to have held a hypothesis of the early use of the iambic metre in the exchange of abuse at ritual, festive, komastic and/or sympotic occasions. In a context similar to that of Plato’s Laws 935e, namely in Politics 1336b (a passage that I discussed in Chapter 9, sect. 3, as evidence for the public performance of iamboi), Aristotle too displays a hostile attitude towards iamboi and comedy. To examine the link that Aristotle establishes between iamboi and aischrologia, ‘obscene language’ (ÆNå溪 Æ), as well as the distinction between iambos and tothasmos, ‘ritual scurrility’ ( øŁÆ ), it will be worth while to look at the passage again. K d b e ºª Ø Ø H Ø ø Kæ Ç , çÆ æe ‹ Ø ŒÆd e Ł øæ E j ªæÆça j º ªı IåÆ. KØ ºb b s ø E ¼æåıØ ÅŁ, ¼ªÆºÆ ªæÆç, rÆØ Ø ø æ ø ÅØ, N c Ææ ØØ Ł E
Ø Ø x ŒÆd e øŁÆe I øØ › . æe b Ø Iç ÅØ › f c ºØŒ Æ å Æ [ Ø] c ƒŒıÅ ŒÆd bæ Æ H ŒÆd
Œø ŒÆd ªıÆØŒH Øƺç E f Ł f b ø æı h N ø h Œøfiø Æ Ł Æ a Ł , æd j c ºØŒ Æ º øØ K fi w ŒÆd ŒÆ ÆŒº ø æ Ø ŒØø E XÅ ŒÆd ŁÅ, ŒÆd B Ie H Ø ø ªØªÅ º Å IÆŁ E ÆØ Æ Ø Ø ø. (Arist. Pol. 1336b) If the use of indecent language is thus to be proscribed, it is obvious that we must also prevent the exhibition of indecent pictures and the performance
326
Perceptions of Iambos
of indecent plays (logoi). It should therefore be the duty of the government to prohibit all statuary and painting which portrays any sort of indecent action. An exception may, however, be made for the festivals of deities where even the use of scurrility (tothasmos) is licensed by the law. (But here, we may note, the law also allows men who have reached a proper maturity to acquit their wives and children from attendance by attending in person themselves.) The seeing of iamboi or comedies should be forbidden to young persons by the legislator, until they have reached the age when they are allowed to share with the older men in the right of reclining and taking wine at the common tables. By that time their education will have made them all immune from the evil eVects of such performances.17
The passage is part of a discussion about the education of children. Two psychological assumptions lie behind Aristotle’s argument. First, that people usually move from words to actions (1336b5–6). Second, that we like what we get to know Wrst (1336b33). The two assumptions are at the base of Aristotle’s banishment of rude language (ÆNå溪 Æ KŒ B º ø . . . E . . . Kæ Ç Ø, 1336b3–6). Moreover, Aristotle extends his restriction of aischrologia to the visual and performance arts, although he allows it in two particular cases: ritual scurrility ( øŁÆ ), and comedy and iamboi. The passage displays similarities and diVerences with the passage from Plato’s Laws. Indeed, both Plato and Aristotle are similarly concerned with education and have a psychological basis for their arguments. Both propose a restriction on poetic performances. However, whereas Plato restricts the contents and the type of language, Aristotle restricts the age of the audience.18 The fact that they use diVerent terms, Aristotle aischrologia and Plato kakegoria, might create the impression that they are speaking of diVerent things. However, they actually follow a very similar line. Plato, as we have seen, uses kakegoria in a non-juridical sense, as a type of conduct characterized especially by rude language, bad-tempered humour, and derogatory purposes, thus ºØæ Æ, ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ, and ÆNå溪 Æ appear as roughly overlapping. Similarly, in Aristotle’s passage aischrologia is associated with what is base, rude, and shameful
17 Translated by Barker (1946), 330. Barker has ‘mimes’ instead of iamboi. 18 Kraut (1997), 165.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
327
( e ÆNåæ , 1336b6; Iåø, 1336b14; a çÆFºÆ, 1336b34), with depravity (åŁÅæ Æ, 1336b35), and enmity (ı ØÆ, 1336b35). There are no juridical connotations. What is at stake, rather than false allegations, is the use of obscene language that is potentially oVensive. The fact that in this passage Aristotle speaks of iamboi and tothasmos may be seen as supporting the hypothesis of the ritual origins of iambos based on the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. However, as I argued in Chapter 6, already in the sixth century bce iambos seems to have been perceived as a ‘more civilized’ form, distinct from ritual obscenity. Such a distinction also features in Aristotle’s testimony. Indeed, in the two exceptions allowed to his banishment of aischrologia, adult males may honour certain gods with the customary tothasmos19 and watch iamboi and comedy. As the verbs ‘honour’ and ‘watch’ indicate, the two spheres of cult and art, so to speak, are here distinguished. In Chapter 9 I have already noted this distinction between ritual scurrility ( øŁÆ ), in which one takes part to honour a god ( Øƺç E f Ł ), and the staged performance of obscenity, in which one takes part as a spectator (Ł Æ Æ ). Thus, tothasmos belongs to actual ritual, unlike comedy and iamboi, which are framed by ritual (for example, at a competitive festival). Gender suggests a further signiWcant diVerence between Aristotle’s tothasmos and the Iambe scene in the Hymn to Demeter. In the Hymn, as well as in most of the Demeter festivals that involved obscenity (Haloa, Stenia, Thesmophoria), scurrility appears as a female practice. In the Politics, however, we Wnd that Aristotle restricts participation to men only. Furthermore, in the Politics not only does iambos appear as a genre connected to male-dominated contexts, namely common meals and dramatic festivals, but the philosopher’s interest is focused on those having political rights.20 The restrictions proposed by the two philosophers regarding kakegoria and aischrologia in comic poetic genres are not absolute.
19 Cf. Plato, R. 378 where stories about the gods considered inappropriate for children are allowed in the context of mystery cults. Plato suggests the sacriWce of an expensive animal in order to limit as much as possible the participation in these cults. 20 We do hear of one female composer of iamboi, Moschina from Attica (Ath. 297a, see Ch. 2, sect. 2). On the problematic distinctions between participating and spectating, efficacious and entertaining, see Csapo (2007), 4–7.
328
Perceptions of Iambos
Plato allows for mild forms of abuse provided they are not performed by citizens, nor learnt by them, nor composed by immature citizens (Laws 816d–e; 829), whereas Aristotle allows adult male citizens to attend performances of iamboi and comedy. Still, the fact that both Plato and Aristotle proposed legislating against the language of comedy and iamboi because of their eVect on both performers and spectators is indicative of a more general critical attitude towards those genres. Such a hostile attitude seems to have developed in intellectual circles within theoretical discussions on education, political organization, and theories of humour in relation to education and politics. The approach was probably linked to concrete legal restrictions on freedom of speech in fourth-century Athens (probably 5th-cent. as well) and the Athenian law against slander, which on occasions applied to comedy. Thus, a negative view of iamboi seems to have been promoted from outside the Weld of poetics and literary criticism.
3 . ‘ T H AT S O RC E R E R F E D ON IAMBOS ’ (DEM. COR . 1 3 9. 7 ) In the same way as the name Archilochus was used as a term of abuse (Ath. 505d–e, Chapter 10, sect. 4), it seems that the connotations of the word iambos made this a powerful insult. In On the Crown, a speech composed in 343/2 bce, Demosthenes refers to the orator Aeschines with the expression ‘that sorcerer iamb . . .’ (› ŒÆ y NÆ . . . , 139.7). The speciWc word that interests us has been transmitted as NÆ Øçª (iambics-eater), NÆ Øªæç (iambicswriter), and NÆ ªæç (iambos-writer) or emended to NÆ çª (iambos-eater). From each textual variant derive diVerent interpretations of the content or function associated with iambos in the fourth century bce. Yet, all readings equally dwell on abuse. Indeed, the word baskanos ( ŒÆ), ‘bewitcher’, ‘sorcerer’, used by Demosthenes in the same speech at 119.5, 132.4, and 242.2, is always accompanied by other insults.21 From the context of On the Crown it is clear that the 21 At 25.90.3 and 83.5 › ŒÆ y appears in a context of magic; cf. also 21.209.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
329
vehement › ŒÆ y . . . abuses Aeschines precisely for his own abuse (ºØæ Æ), a recurrent accusation in the speech (cf. 9–11, 15, 24, 34, 122–6). The four possible readings, ‘iambics-eater’, ‘iambos-eater’, ‘iambicswriter’, ‘iambos-writer’ (NÆ Øçª, NÆ çª, NÆ Øªæç, NÆ ªæç) are all determinative compounds in which the Wrst elements function as objects to the nomen agentis.22 Now, invective often resorts to compounds. As West has pointed out, compound adjectives are frequently coined for insults in the Iliad, e.g. Å æ Æغ (1.231),23 and Hesiod’s øæçªØ (Op. 39, 221, and 264) seems to be similarly derogatory. Compounds of this sort are an outstanding feature of comedy. More than a hundred compounds with -çª are attested in the Greek language.24 Many qualify animals or people according to the food they eat, and are often used in biological25 and ethnographical descriptions.26 In some cases the ‘eating’ is Wgurative and the compound conveys criticism or is plainly an insult, as Homer’s Å æ (devourer of the people or of the common stock)27 and Hesiod’s øæçªØ (gift-eaters), to which we can add Theognis 1181: Åçª æÆ (similar to Homer’s Å æ). In comedy we Wnd several examples of epithets ending with -çª that abuse ethnic groups28 or individuals.29 Thus abusive compounds with -çª have numerous antecedents. On the contrary, derogatory compounds with -ªæç, e.g. ºªªæç (Aischin. 1.94, 2.180, 3.173;
22 Palmer (1980), 258–60. 23 West (1978), 151. 24 Locker (1944), 378–9 lists 132 compounds with -çƪ, including both variants NÆ çª and NÆ Øçª. 25 e.g. ŒÆæçª, Arist. HA 488a15; ÆæŒçª, 556b21; Æçª, 593b14. 26 e.g. Hdt. 3.20.2 NåŁıçª; 4.18.10 Iæçª; 4.186.2 Œæ çª. 27 LSJ s.v. 28 e.g. Ar. Ach. 872 ŒººØŒçª, of the Boeotians; Crates 360.1 ıªŒÆ Æ ıØçª, of Œ ºÆŒ . 29 e.g. Ar. Ran. 357 Æıæçª, of Cratinus; Ar. Plu. 706 ŒÆ çª. The compounds with -çª that appear in surviving iambic poetry are probably not derogatory (Archil. 43.3W O æıªÅçªı, ‘grain-fed’; Hippon. 103.11W ÆƺÅçª, ‘millet-fed’). However, since food is one of the subjects that features in both iambos and Old Comedy (West (1974), 31) and this type of epithet appears in diVerent poetic and prose genres, one may legitimately suspect that abusive compounds with -çª were used in iambic poetry.
330
Perceptions of Iambos
cf. Dem. 19.246) are far less common. In using a compound, particularly if the word is a compound with -çª, Demosthenes follows a convention of Greek invective. The two readings ending in -ªæç denote a writer. In the case of NÆ Øªæç, how could calling Aeschines a ‘writer of iambics’ be derogatory? It may refer to Aeschines’ own poetry,30 part of which might have been written in iambic metres, and in that case the insult would refer to no more than the fact that he composed poetry. The word NÆ ªæç, on the other hand, implies calling Aeschines a composer in a particular genre, that of iamboi. This can hardly refer to Aeschines’ poetry, which we know from other sources to have been erotic, but it could refer to the dominant features of iambos, namely abuse. The term could play a twofold role. First, it may involve a retort to Aeschines, who more than once called Demosthenes a logographos (ºªªæç), ‘speech-writer’ (Aischin. 1.4, 2.180, 3.173; cf. Dem. 19.246). Second, it may allude to Aeschines as loidoros (º æ), ‘abusive’, a charge Demosthenes presses at several points in On the Crown, particularly before our passage. If the iambographoi (NÆ ªæçØ) and their works were associated by Demosthenes and his audience with loidoria (ºØæ Æ), his abuse would consist in calling Aeschines not a rhetorician, but a mere writer of invective. Both readings ending in -çª, namely NÆ Øçª and NÆ çª have been taken since antiquity as alluding to Aeschines’ career as an actor (cf. EM s.v.),31 most speciWcally to his defective pronunciation.32 As for NÆ Øçª, ‘fed on iambics’, it may involve also an allusion to Aeschines’ habit of quoting poetry in his speeches. In On the False Embassy of 343/2 Demosthenes claimed that Aeschines quotes poetry because he actually lacks witnesses (243.1). The variant NÆ çª, ‘iambos-eater’, ‘nurtured on iambos’, is appropriate in the context of a speech that constantly refers to Aeschines’
30 Weil (1883), 490; Goodwin (1904). 31 Weil (1883), 490; Goodwin (1904); Yunis (2001), 115. 32 Cf. e Æ Æ ºªıØ, Anecd. Bekk. 190.9. Vo¨mel’s objection (‘qui edunt, ingerunt escam, non proferunt, NÆ çª non est NÆ º ª’) is too literal an interpretation.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
331
abuse and false allegations, given that iambos was strongly associated, at this time, with loidoria (ºØæ Æ). Thus far I have treated the various textual variants as equal possibilities. The textual tradition, however, suggests that the variants with -eater, -çª, should be preferred. The reading NÆ Øªæç appears in the tenth-century codex Parisinus 2934 (S) and in the Venetus 416 (F). It was kept by the vulgate.33 Another codex from the tenth century, the Monacensis 485 (A), has the variant NÆ ªæç. The reading NÆ Øçª appears in Parisinus 2935 (Y) also from the tenth century, and as a correction by a second hand to NÆ Øçª in Parisinus 2934 and Venetus 416.34 The emendation NÆ çª is based on the Etymologicum Magnum (s.v., p. 463, 41). According to Wankel, who oVers a sound evaluation of the various textual variants, NÆ Øªæç has the best manuscript authority but it is the lectio facilior.35 Against NÆ ªæç counts the fact that the word is not a neologism, which is at odds with second-century evidence. Indeed, NÆ çª was known already in antiquity as a word invented by Demosthenes. Hermogenes of Tarsus (2nd cent. ce), the writer on rhetoric, mentions NÆ çª (Cor. 18.139) and ªæÆÆ Œçø (Cor. 18.209) (Id. p. 262.11; p. 359.19) as examples of words coined by Demosthenes. He also quotes our phrase fully at Id. 263.4. For these three places the manuscript tradition of Hermogenes’ text supports almost universally the readings with -çª.36 Therefore, we can be sure that Hermogenes, at any rate, read NÆ çª.
33 NÆ Øªæç is preferred by Simcox (1872); Lipsius (1887); Westerman (1895); Goodwin (1904). 34 NÆ Øçª is preferred by Weil (1883); Blass (1890); Dindorf (1896); Butcher (1903); Yunis (2001). 35 Wankel (1976), 758–60. 36 In fact, of all codices reported by Rabe in his edition of æd N H, only one 12th-cent. MS (Scorialensis T. III.10) has -ªæç (for 263.4). For Hermog. Id. 262.11 the paradosis reads either NÆ Øçª (Parisinus 2977, Ambrosianus 523, Parisinus 1983, all 11th-cent. MSS) or NÆ çª (Vaticanus Urb. 130 and Basileensis 70, 11th cent.). For Id. 263.4 all MSS give the same readings, except that Basileensis reads NÆ Øçª and the 12th-cent. Scorialensis T. III.10 has NÆ Øªæç or NÆ Øªæç. For Id. 359.19 only the readings with -çª are attested.
332
Perceptions of Iambos
Further support for the readings with -çª comes from the entry NÆ çª in the Etymologicum Magnum: NÆ çª º æ K Øc YÆ æ K Ø ºØæ Æ. › çƪ s K
fiH Æ Ø, › åø f N ı, ı Ø › åø Øa Æ c çغºØæ Æ. Å ÆØ ˜ÅŁÅ K fiH æd F çı, åÆ ŒÆd ÆæÆÆ Çø N e `Nå Å, ‹ Ø a NÆ EÆ B æƪfiø Æ º ª ŒæØ c þ. ŒÆd NÆ Ç Ø e ºØæ E ŒÆd ŒÆŒºª E. (EM 463.41–8) Iambophagos (‘iambos-eater’): Abusive. For iambos is abuse in metre. So, who eats with the mouth, who holds iamboi, that is to say, who holds love of abuse (philoloidoria) in his mouth (i.e. speech). Demosthenes mentions it in On the Crown, probably making a pun on Aeschines, because he used to recite iambics from tragedy, as he was an actor. And iambizein [means] to abuse (loidorein) and speak ill (kakologein).
This entry conXates two diVerent explanations. The Wrst one links the Wrst part of the component (NÆ -) to iambos, which is deWned as ‘abuse (loidoria) in metre’. This explanation alludes to çغº æ, which appears at Cor. 126. The second explanation makes a connection with Aeschines’ career as a tragic actor, a career often ridiculed by Demosthenes in The Crown (e.g. at 15, 127, 180, 242, 265, 267, 313). This explanation, however, implies that the Wrst part of the component refers to iambeia (NÆ EÆ), ‘iambics’, rather than to iambos, thus probably deriving from a commentary that favours NÆ Øçª, and not NÆ çª. Indeed, both the reference to the speciWc passage in which Demosthenes uses the word and the allusion to çغº æ suggest that all the material ultimately derives from the commentary tradition on Demosthenes. It seems, therefore, that the EM records two early explanations that sustain either the reading NÆ çª or NÆ Øçª. If, as it seems, a controversy about these two readings goes back to ancient commentators, and if the transmission of Hermogenes’ text can be trusted, either of the two readings with -çª has a stronger claim than those with -ªæç to be closer to the original.37 Therefore, on the basis of Hermogenes’ and the EM’s testimonies, I agree with Wankel that the
37 NÆ ªæç is certainly not a neologism. As for NÆ Øªæç, although it is not attested elsewhere, it is not unusual enough to explain why an ancient scholar such as Hermogenes would record it as Demosthenes’ coinage.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
333
readings with -çª are preferable to the readings with -ªæç.38 In my view, between the two readings with ‘-eater’, the one mentioned by Hermogenes, ‘iambos-eater’, is to be preferred. The textual variants certainly make it diYcult to establish the value of Demosthenes’ testimony in On the Crown 139.7. As we have seen, it is possible that the textual divergence goes back to the ancient commentary tradition. Readings with -ªæç fail to explain the ancients’ perception of the term as a neologism, whereas readings with -çª have the support of the commentary and lexicographical tradition. What is clear is that the term has the aim of abusing Aeschines, less probably as a writer of poetry (NÆ Øªæç), a professional actor (NÆ Øçª), an orator who quotes poetry instead of producing witnesses (NÆ Øçª), or a writer of iamboi (NÆ ªæç), and much more probably as someone who is full of iamboi, probably understood as ºØæ Æ and ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ. Perhaps we could go further and say, with Vardi, that Demosthenes abuses Aeschines as ‘one who makes his living (is fed on) from invective’.39 If my interpretation of Demosthenes’ references (dated 343/2 bce) is allowed, the rhetorical eVectiveness of his neologism depends on the term iambos being immediately associated by the audience with slander and rude language, which Laws 935e (composed before Plato’s death in 347 bce) suggests was a real possibility. Thus, by the mid-fourth century bce the conceptualization of iambos through the dominant feature of abuse seems to have been completed.
4 . PA RAPSOGOS AND I A MB OS (P L. PHDR . 2 6 7A ) Parapsogoi (ÆæłªØ) are a ghostly presence often mistaken for a genre akin to iamboi. Indeed, Euenus of Paros’ parapsogoi have been associated with iamboi by scholars who, like Gentili and Degani, take them as a poetic variety of psogos, and subsequently identify psogos with iambos or subsume psogos under the general category of 38 Wankel (1976), 758 prefers NÆ Øçª to NÆ çª. 39 Amiel Vardi (private communication).
334
Perceptions of Iambos
iambos.40 In my view there is no evidence for a connection between parapsogoi and iamboi as a genre. If Euenus is to be taken as a composer of iamboi, it would be only by virtue of a single iambic tetrameter that has come down to us (fr. 9aW). Euenus of Paros was a teacher of rhetoric contemporary with Socrates (Pl. Phd. 60d, Ap. 20a–b). He was also known as a poet, and his remaining fragments include elegiacs (frr. 1–8W), two hexameters (fr. 9W), and one iambic trimeter (fr. 9aW).41 In Phaedrus 267a Plato mentions Euenus among other sophists. His parapsogoi are mentioned in a survey of technical terms used by teachers of rhetorical art (266d–267d). Socrates attributes to him the invention of ºøØ and ÆæÆØØ. ‘Some people say’, he adds, ‘that he utters also ÆæłªØ in metre for the sake of memory.’
e b ŒººØ —æØ ¯PÅe K PŒ ¼ª , n ºø æH Åyæ ŒÆd Ææ Æ ı—ƒ ÆP e ŒÆd ÆæÆł ªı çÆd K æfiø ºª Ø Å åæØ—çe ªaæ ±æ (Pl. Phdr. 267a) Shall we not introduce the distinguished Parian, Euenus? He was the Wrst to invent insinuation (hypodelosis) and incidental praise (parepainos)—and some say that he also put into verse, as an aid to memory, incidental censure (parapsogos); for he is a clever man.42
The terms parepainos (ÆæÆØ) and parapsogos (Ææłª) are not attested elsewhere. LSJ renders them as ‘subordinate or incidental praise’ and ‘incidental censure’ respectively. Nor is the term hypodelosis (ºøØ) attested elsewhere. In Plato, however, the word ºøØ means ‘explanation’ (Min. 314a; Plt. 287a) whereas Aristotle uses the compound źF in the sense of ‘show privately’ or 40 Gentili (1988a), 107–14; Degani (1988a), 1005. 41 On the identiWcation and date of Euenus of Paros see Garzya (1963), 75–89. Euenus was known not only as an elegiac poet (Harpocration s.v.; Suid. s.v. and s.v. * ºØ ) but also as an erotic writer (Artem. 1.4; Arrian, Diss. 4. 9. 6; Auson. Cent. Nupt. p. 218). Bergk (PLG II4 272 f., cf. ad Theogn. 465 V.) distinguishes the sophist (frr. 1–5 Bergk) from the erotic writer (frr. 6–9 Bergk), whereas Garzya believes it possible for Euenus to have been known in Socratic circles also as an erotic writer. Harpocration (s.v.) reports Eratosthenes’ opinion that there were two homonymous elegiac poets from Paros. Scepticism about the existence of two homonymous poets has been expressed by Keil (1888), 379 n. 1, who believes that the two poets and the sophist are one and the same person. Bowı`e (forthcoming b) identifies Euenus as the first collector of the gnomic/sympotic elegiac song-book that became the Theognidea. 42 Translated by Gerber (1999b), 445.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
335
‘secretly’ (Th. 1011).43 Later on Philostratus (Her. Proem. 3) and Plutarch (Nic. 4) use źF for ‘hint at, suggest’. From these uses it appears that hypodelosis works by insinuation or allusion. On the assumption that parepainos and parapsogos are similar to hypodelosis it would be possible to infer that they convey praise and blame by allusion or insinuation. At any rate, later rhetorical theory counts ‘insinuation’ as one of the techniques for both praise and blame.44 In scholarly literature Euenus’ parapsogoi are usually understood either as rhetorical devices or as compositions involving abuse.45 However, a closer look at Phaedrus 266d–267d will suggest an alternative to current interpretations. In Phaedrus 266d–267d Socrates and Phaedrus discuss the ‘reWnements of the rhetorical art’ ( a Œła B åÅ), more precisely the various parts of speech and rhetorical devices invented and taught by Theodorus, Euenus, Gorgias, Tisias, Prodicus, Hippias, Polus, Licymnius, Protagoras, and Thrasymachus. Mockery of nomenclature seems to underlie the whole passage. The grandiosity attributed to the sophists’ claims about their inventions (IÅFæ for Tisias and Gorgias, ÅæÅŒÆØ for Prodicus, æH Åyæ for Euenus) contrasts with Socrates’ qualiWcation of them as mere reWnements. Before Euenus, Socrates mentions Theodorus of Byzantion, whom he calls ºªÆ ƺ, ‘cunning speech maker’, another term that is not attested elsewhere and probably conveys mockery. Theodorus’ devices, also known from Arist. Rh. 1414b (in a passage that explicitly rejects superXuous rhetorical categories), all involve compound nouns with prepositions: øØ, KØ øØ, º ªå, K º ªå— not unlike the series attributed to Euenus, namely ºøØ, ÆæÆØØ, and ÆæłªØ. In Theodorus’ technical terms it is the change of preWx that provides a diVerent meaning for the same noun; ÆæłªØ, on the contrary, keeps the preposition and exchanges the
43 ‘Show privately’, LSJ s.v. ‘Convey a secret intimation’, Thompson (1868), 113. 44 Lausberg (1998), 132–3. 45 Ebert (2001), 424 suggests that Euenus put some of his rhetorical devices in verse for mnemotechnical reasons. Cf. Kennedy’s translation: ‘some say that he also composed examples of indirect praise in meter so that they could be remembered better’ (Kennedy (1994), 30).
336
Perceptions of Iambos
noun ÆØ for its opposite, ł ª. Could not this be a playful neologism? Indeed, two facts signal that hypodelosis and parepainoi are of a diVerent nature from parapsogoi. First, there is a change of subject in the transition from hypodelosis and parepainoi to parapsogoi, and the comment on parapsogoi is parenthetical. It is other people (N ) who speak about Euenus’ parapsogoi in metre. If parapsogoi were one of Euenus’ rhetorical devices, there would be no point in attributing the comment to others. Certainly a mere assertion would have been in place for a fact about Euenus’ didactic methods. Secondly, the verb used for parapsogoi is ºª Ø (say, utter) and not æ E (discover), which is used for the discovery of other rhetorical devices. The emphasis is laid on the utterance and not on the discovery. Hence, it is possible that parapsogoi do not belong to Euenus’ rhetorical achievements at all, but that they refer to his activity as a poet. Elsewhere Plato mentions Euenus’ poetical work. In the Phaedo Euenus is reported to have asked why Socrates wrote poems in prison, to which Socrates replies that he had no intention of competing with Euenus (PŒ KŒ fiø ıº Pb E ØÆØ ÆP F I å rÆØ K ÅÆ ÆF Æ—fi XÅ ªaæ ‰ P Þfi Ø YÅ, 60d8–e1). The apparent Xattery of Euenus in that passage seems to conceal some degree of scorn. Similarly, Socrates’ comment in our passage of the Phaedrus seems to be ironic. Furthermore, the attribution of the comment to others may be intended to convey abuse ‘through someone else’, as Aristotle recommends (Rh. 1418b28). Similar indirect derogatory evaluation appears later when Socrates mentions Prodicus’ laughter at Tisias’ and Gorgias’ discoveries. On the basis of these considerations I suggest that, unlike hypodelosis and parepainoi, which are probably real rhetorical devices invented by Euenus, parapsogoi are a coinage—probably Plato’s own—made with two purposes: to parody the complicated nomenclature used by teachers of rhetorical art, and at the same time to make a pun on Euenus’ poetic activity. As we have seen in the previous section, invective often resorts to composita (cf. ºªÆ ƺ earlier in the passage). Parapsogoi may be such a term of abuse rather than a rhetorical device or a type of composition; it is Plato’s mock term for Euenus’ poetry.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
337
Parapsogoi, in sum, are not a genre of invective poetry. Nevertheless, Gentili’s inXuential interpretation of our passage deserves attention, for besides the link between iambos and parapsogoi it incidentally postulates a semantic extension of the term iambos to cover poems written in elegiac couplets. The starting point of this argument is Hermias of Alexandria’s (5th-cent. ce) comment on Plato’s passage: —Ææ Æ ı b ºª Ø ¥Æ ¼ ØŒæı c KÆØfi B, Œfi B b KÆØ E › ø b ŒÆd łª Ø.46 ŁÆıÆ e b Kª ¯hÅ, ŒÆd IººÆåF ÆP e KÆØ E, n ŒÆd e YÆ F r < j > ç j ºÅ ÆE Æ æd Æ .
[¼ fr. 6W]
$e b Å åæØ, K Øc a Å H ŒÆ ƺªÅ PÅ ı
æ K Ø. (Herm. in Phdr. 238 Couvreur) He says parepainoi because one does not praise openly, but seems to praise. Similarly with blame. Euenos was an extraordinary man and Plato praises him elsewhere; Euenos also composed this iambos: ‘for the father a child is a constant source either of fear or of grief ’47 ‘For the sake of memory’, because verses are easier to remember than prose.
According to Gentili, the word ¼ ØŒæı in Hermias’ note leaves no doubt that parepainos and parapsogos mean ‘indirect praise and blame’,48 what he calls ‘para-encomium’ and ‘para-invective’ respectively—rhetorical categories that Aristotle would have later ignored.49 Gentili suggests further that recourse to a persona loquens, aphorisms, and gnomic statements were the devices used for the purpose of indirect praise and blame, and he exempliWes both categories with Archilochus 196aW. Finally, Gentili adduces the defective pentameter quoted by Hermias, ‘for the father a child is a constant source either of fear or of grief ’50 (ç j ºÅ ÆE Æ æd Æ , Euenus 46 Couvreur (1901), 238 suggests › ø b ŒÆd < ÆæÆł ªı ¥Æ c Œfi B > łª Ø. 47 Euenus’ line is translated by Gerber (1999b), 451. The translation of Hermias is mine. 48 Gentili (1988a), 270 n. 22. ‘Indirect compliment or censure’ was already proposed by Thompson (1868), 113. 49 Gentili (1988a), 110, though it is implied that Euenus’ categories of parepainos and parapsogos are similar to the one referred to by Aristotle in Rh. 1418b28 as ‘speaking through someone else’. 50 Translated by Gerber (1999b), 451.
338
Perceptions of Iambos
fr. 6W) as an example of this para-invective, based on Hermias’ identiWcation of the line as an iambos: ‘The elegy in which it appeared must have oVered an example of ‘‘para-invective’’; and Hermias implies as much when he characterizes the tone and function of the line as ‘‘iambic’’ (ı´ambon)’.51 Many important questions arise from Gentili’s interpretation. Can the ‘parapsogoi in metre’ mentioned by Plato be identiWed with iamboi? Is the line quoted by Hermias an instance of Euenus’ parapsogoi or of his alleged iamboi? Finally, even if Hermias referred to an elegiac poem as iambos, could the term iamboi be used in the classical period for identifying poems by virtue of their ‘tone and function’ regardless of their metre? We know nothing about parapsogoi except for the fact that the word contains the term psogos. Even if parapsogoi were a type of invective composition, there is no evidence to identify them with the iambic genre speciWcally. It is true that iamboi is the poetic genre that ancient sources consistently connected with psogos but other poetic genres conveyed invective as well (see, in this respect, the introduction to Chapter 10). If, as I suggest, the term parapsogoi is a word coined by Plato in order to abuse Euenus, there is no link between parapsogoi and the pentameter quoted by Hermias. Let us nevertheless follow the argument according to which the term parapsogoi refers to a rhetorical device or to a type of composition which teaches the technique of indirect abuse. If that is the case, it still remains to be demonstrated that Hermias’ quotation (fr. 6W) would be an instance of such parapsogoi. What is at stake here is whether a poem composed in elegiacs could be called iambos in the classical period by virtue of its tone and function, as was proposed by Gentili. The answer to this question depends on whether we accept the paradosis of Hermias’ text, which involves an identiWcation (a late one, it must be stressed) of a pentameter as an iambos. What is remarkable about Hermias’ quotation (< j > ç j ºÅ ÆE Æ æd Æ , Euenus fr. 6W) is that it does not involve abuse or invective. It is self-contained and, like other fragments of Euenus (frr. 1–5, 7W), it has a proverbial tone. It may have been precisely because of this gnomic character that these fragments were 51 Gentili (1988a), 110; 270 n. 22.
Invective as the Dominant Feature
339
transmitted, for example, by Plutarch and Stobaeus. It is certainly possible that Hermias knew the line from a collection of proverbs or gnomai without knowing the whole poem and that his n ŒÆd e YÆ F r involves no appreciation of the tone and function of the original poem. That the paradosis itself can be called into doubt has been argued by Lennartz. The line quoted by Hermias is also quoted by Plutarch (de Amore Prolis 4 p. 497a) and Artem. 1.1552 as follows: j j ºÅ ÆE Æ æd Æ åæ .
Lennartz oVers a convincing reconstruction of the process of corruption: was substituted by the more banal ç , the Wrst X was simply omitted and took the place of åæ by a Erinnerungsfehler. Lennartz claims not only that these mistakes are unlikely to be Hermias’ own, but also that the quotation technique is in itself far from Hermias’ practice, for Hermias never adduces a quotation unless there is a speciWc point he wants to illustrate.53 Lennartz concludes that Hermias’ text was interpolated by someone who not only failed to quote Euenus correctly but also wrongly identiWed the line ç j ºÅ ÆE Æ æd Æ as an iambos54 because he was familiar with the Byzantine dodecasyllable.55 That is to say, instead of noting the rhythm the interpolator counted syllables, and twelve is the number of syllables of a pure iambic trimeter. To Lennartz’s explanation I would add that the interpolator could have written ØÆ Ø (or ØÆ Ø, as it is usually rendered in manuscripts) which by a simple omission of iota was changed into ØÆ at a later stage.56 At any rate, it is extremely diYcult not to suspect the paradosis. Hermias does not provide reliable evidence for sustaining that 52 Cf. Leutsch and Schneidewin (1839), vol. 2, p. 170, no. 38. 53 Lennartz (2000a), 232–3. 54 Lennartz (2000a), 233 n. 27 suggests that Galen’s transmission of Hipponax fr. 121W is a case similar to Hermias’, because a trochaic tetrameter is identiWed as YÆ —although Galen fails to quote the last word: ‘HÆ IçØØ çÅ ŒÆ a
e YÆ . çØØ ªaæ N c ŒÆd På ±Ææ ø (Galen, Hp. Aph. 18.1 pp. 147 f. Ku¨hn). Erotianus (Lex. Hippocr. Æ 31, p. 15 Nachmanson) quotes the complete tetrameter: IçØØ ªæ NØ ŒÆd På ±Ææ ø Œ ø. 55 Cf. West (1982), 185; Maas (1903), 278–323. 56 Could the word ÆæłªØ have attracted the identiWcation of the dodecasyllable as iambos/iambeion by an association of iambos and psogos?
340
Perceptions of Iambos
Euenus fr. 6W belongs to a poem called iambos or that it is an example of Ææłª. As we have seen, Hermias’ alleged use of iambos for a dactylic line lies behind the attractive hypothesis according to which iambos (and iambikos according to Gentili) were applied in antiquity to compositions in dactylic metre, most speciWcally elegiacs, by virtue of their tone, content, or function.57 Degani has supported this hypothesis with two more testimonies: the evaluation of an Archilochean composition dedicated to Dionysos as NÆ ØŒ æ, which appears in the Mnesiepes inscription (A(E1), col. III, l. 38), and the use of NÆ ØÆ by Aristotle (Po. 1458a34) as an introduction for two defective hexameters by the otherwise unknown poet Eucleides. As we have seen in Chapter 10, section 3, iambikoteron (‘too obscene’) in the third-century bce Parian inscription is not a mark of generic aYliation but an evaluation of content posterior to the consolidation of iambos around features of vituperation and obscenity. As for Eucleides, in Chapter 2, section 2, I proposed that he belongs to a fuzzy area of generic ambivalence. Indeed, the citation oVered by Aristotle (perhaps originally embedded in some other metrical context) consists in hexameters used for parodic purposes (cf. Hippon. 128W), and it is not clear whether Aristotle’s NÆ Ø E means literally ‘compose iambos’ or Wguratively ‘parody’. Therefore, the proposal that iambos is attested as referring to dactylic compositions cannot be sustained in general, for evidence suggests that only parodical hexameters, such as Eucleides’, may have occasionally been categorized as iamboi. Thus, as far as the evidence goes, Euenus is not an iambic poet by any possible standard. Some of his extant fragments appear to suit a sympotic setting either by their witty tone or gnomic Xavour. If Euenus wrote blame poetry it has not come down to us. As for the 57 Gentili (1988a), 110; Gentili and Prato (1988), 105 (on fr. 5W); Degani (1988a), 1005–6. This interpretation was perhaps inspired by Dover’s suggestion that iambos might have been used by Archilochus for all his poems, including those written in elegiacs, by virtue of a common occasion of performance (Dover (1964), 189). Degani (1988a), 1005 n. 4, suggests that even NÆ E could designate other metres on the basis of Ath. 355a, where an anapaestic tetrameter by the comic poet Metagenes is quoted as NÆ E. However, NÆ E in Athenaeus may be the result of corruption, of a lacuna, or of a simple mistake (cf. Lennartz (2000a), 229–32).
Invective as the Dominant Feature
341
iambic trimeter by Euenus (fr. 9W) transmitted by Simplicius (in Arist. Phys. 4.221a31), there is no way of knowing whether it belonged to a poem labelled iambos or not. West in his edition cautiously gives the title ‘Trimeter’ to the section, instead of the ‘IAMBOI’ found, for example, in the editions of Diehl (ALG fr. 10) and Gentili-Prato (fr. 10). It is possible, indeed, that Euenus composed iamboi, but this possibility has no connection to Plato’s reference to parapsogoi. In sum, Euenus’ parapsogoi might be a rhetorical device, a type of composition conveying psogos or, as I suggest, a parodical neologism. In the Wrst case they belong to the study of the rhetorical means for expressing invective. In the second case, there are no grounds to identify them as iamboi, nor to take Euenus fr. 6W as an example of them. In the third case, Plato’s joke has not been properly understood. In any event, Euenus’ parapsogoi do not belong to the history of iamboi as a genre.
5 . T H E E M E RG E N C E O F I N V E C T I V E In this chapter I have examined how the perception of iambos as a carrier of abuse crystallized in fourth-century sources, arguing that previously it was Archilochus who was taken as the archetype of invective poetry. Table 5 arranges chronologically the relevant testimonies examined through this book, setting them in relation to the notions explicitly associated either with iambos or with Archilochus. The column entitled ‘neutral’ includes testimonies that are truly neutral in sense, as well as those whose exact conceptual value goes beyond the explicit (such as the parodic eVect of Aristophanes’ quotation of Hipponax, and the presentation of Archilochus and Hipponax as characters in Diphilus’ play). The table shows graphically the conclusions I drew in Chapter 7, namely, that Wfth-century references to iambos are by and large semantically neutral and therefore allow us to infer little about features of content or functions associated with the genre. However, as we have seen in Chapter 10, in the same period Archilochus was associated with very speciWc features indeed, which can be summed up by the term invective.
Table 5. Semantic associations of iambos and Archilochus neutral
Archil. 215W Hymn. Dem. Epicharmus 77 Heraclitus 42 DK Hdt. 1.12 Pindar Cratinus Damon Critias Aristophanes Alcidamas Plato
åº Å Œ - ªºø ł ª ª ºE
ºØæ Æ ŒÆŒÅªæ Æ ºÆo æØ çÅ Æ
Œøfiø E ÆNåæ- º Å ºª Æ
iambos Iambe
Iambe
Iambe
iamboi Negative: Archil. and Homer Archil. iambos Archil.
Archil.
iamboi Archil.
Archil. Hippon. iambos Archil. Archil. iambos
Demosthenes Aristotle Diphilus
æ-
iambos
iambos
iamb-? iambos Archil. iambos Archil. Hipponax
iambos iambos
Invective as the Dominant Feature
343
It is only from Plato on that we Wnd iambos as a genre explicitly associated with abuse and obscene language. Aristotle’s iambizein in Po. 1458b3–12 and the adjective iambikoteros in the Mnesiepes inscription obtained their meaning from the notions of abuse and obscenity as dominant features of iambos. Let us go back to the testimonies on Archilochus examined in Chapter 10. The way our sources link him to other poets conWgures, by contrast or by similarity, general types of poetry, as illustrated in Table 6. If, as I suggest, Archilochus came to represent invective poetry in the Wfth century, the conjunction or opposition to other poets who are in turn prototypical of other types of poetry would be indicative of generic distinctions. In Heraclitus fr. 42 DK Archilochus and Homer represent either two poles of poetic expression or the whole poetic Weld. Pindar himself sets his own poetry in opposition to Archilochus’. Cratinus brought onto the stage Archilochus, Homer, and Hesiod, probably contrasting the poetic diction and the moral values of the diVerent types of poetry they were felt to represent. Finally, towards the end of the fourth century bce, Diphilus put Archilochus and Hipponax on the stage—and this is the Wrst time that they appear together in our sources. By now iambos had been frequently connected with invective, and at the same time iambos had more than once been grouped together with comedy. If Diphilus treated Archilochus and Hipponax as representatives of the same kind of poetry regardless of diVerences between the two (and probably in opposition to Sappho’s poetry), this would mark a rupture with Archilochus as the almost univocal archetypal model for invective poetry. We can thus suggest the following reconstruction of the process: the more the genre of iambos
Table 6. Generic conWgurations Heraclitus Pindar Cratinus Plato Aristotle Diphilus
Archilochus Archilochus Archilochus iambos iambos Archilochus Archilochus and Hipponax
and? vs.? vs. vs.? and and and? vs.?
Homer Pindar Homer and Hesiod comedy (and melic poetry) comedy Hipponax Sappho
344
Perceptions of Iambos
as a whole came to be identiWed with the dominant feature of invective, the less it depended on Archilochus as a prototype for its identiWcation, and thus allowed Hipponax, perceived as sharing the dominant feature, to be introduced as a second prototype. This was particularly the case for Alexandrine poets who experimented with iamboi. It seems that we witness a development from a concept of the genre depending primarily on its archetypical representative towards iambos as a genre deWned by virtue of its dominant features. This new conception of the genre is what will eventually lead to the Hellenistic canon of three iambographers (Archilochus, Hipponax, and Semonides) as well as to the deWnition of iambos as ‘invective in metre’, typical of educational sources. The fact that the rather neutral Wfth-century references to iambos are followed by hostile ones in Plato’s Laws and Aristotle’s Politics seems also related to broader cultural developments. Indeed, the hostile attitude to iambos originated within the philosophers’ theories of education, as part of psychological theories, and in discussions on political organization. In addition, whenever theoretical criticism is levelled against iambos it is targeted against the set ‘iambos and comedy’. Therefore, if for political reasons there was, from time to time, a temporary prohibition of OÆ d Œøfiø E (abuse of named individuals) by comic poets, or if the philosophers’ hostile attitude to comic abuse had any practical consequences, we may be right to infer that the composition and performance of iamboi might also have been aVected. Furthermore, we Wnd iambos associated with psogos in the context of a theoretical distinction between two types of epideictic discourse, praise and blame (as in Arist. Rh. 1418b28). This distinction between two modes of discourse pervades Greek reXection about verbal expression as a whole. Hence, rhetorical theories must have also inXuenced the reception of particular iambic poems or individual poets, and the ‘chunking’ of abuse as dominant feature followed. Invective is, indeed, a traditional manner of expression, and handbooks of rhetoric prescribe the best way to achieve it. The stockthemes of invective are used by orators and they are a favourite resource for comic poets as well. And yet some of the topics of invective were forbidden by the Athenian law of slander. Therefore,
Invective as the Dominant Feature
345
invective has a twofold status. On the one hand, invective is useful and it is, above all, funny. On the other hand, it is occasionally restricted by norms of etiquette or by law. The association of iambos with invective probably made the genre as a whole share the same problematic and ambivalent status in its audience’s eyes. The most common way of treating the association of iambos and invective is to conclude that invective was the most prominent feature of the genre in the archaic period. As Bowie suggests, whereas in Aeolian and Doric archaic contexts melic song performed the role of both praise and blame poetry (e.g. Alcaeus), in Ionian traditions praise was expressed mostly in hexameters and elegiacs, and blame poetry was usually voiced in iambic and trochaic trimeters or in epodic strophes.58 This, however, does not mean that all poetry in those metres involved invective, as Bowie himself has shown.59 In fact, the ‘received iambos’, the corpus of iambic poets that we deWned in Chapter 2 on the basis of explicit ancient references, is not as a whole characterized by the presence of invective. At the same time, as I suggested in Chapter 7, iambic rhythm does seem to have been perceived as a dominant feature of iambos as a genre, from the seventh to the Wfth century bce. Furthermore, invective is not a literary genre. It is employed by diVerent genres, in poetry and prose, in contexts as diVerent as the symposion and the court. It is also embedded in other poetic genres such as epic poetry and Old Comedy. A deWnition such as ‘self-standing poetic invective’ does not cover the corpus that has come down to us: there is more than invective in iambos, and there is poetic invective beyond iambos. The following theoretical distinctions may help us understand the relationship between invective and iambos. Invective is a type of utterance, a ‘speech genre’ in Bakhtin’s terms.60 Various rhetorical and literary genres make use of conventions and devices (subject matter, style, and structure) typical of this primary speech genre, and iambos is one of them. We could say that iambos is a secondary speech genre that has absorbed and digested various primary speech genres, invective being a prominent one, though animal fables and Wrst-person narratives are also speech genres incorporated by iambos. 58 Ewen Bowie (personal communication); cf. Bowie (2001a), 6 n. 12. 59 Bowie (2002a). 60 Bakhtin (1986), 60–7; Cf. Yatromanolakis (2004), 62–3.
346
Perceptions of Iambos
However, while other poetic genres have made use of invective without its being perceived as characteristic of them, at least from the fourth century bce on the use of conventions and devices typical of invective was perceived as a dominant feature of iambos. As we have seen, invective emerges in our sources Wrst as the dominant feature of Archilochus’ poetry, and only later does it appear as the dominant feature of iamboi. Such focus on this particular aspect of Archilochus and of iamboi in general is apparent particularly in classical Athens. It is possible that the reception of iambic poetry in that speciWc context tainted the perception of the genre with contemporary concerns regarding civic and legal aspects of personal reputation and an ambiguous attitude towards freedom of speech.61 A rhetorical prism with a strong traditional basis (the binary categorization of verbal utterances as ‘praise’ or ‘blame’) seems to have also played an important role in the perception of iambos. In sum, the association of iambos with invective and abuse at the expense of other features may be the result of a reception driven by the concerns and anxieties of classical Athens, which may be representative of their time. 61 Saxonhouse (2006), 98–9.
Final Remarks The aim of this book has been to unfold the process of conceptualization of Greek iambos as a literary genre through the study of explicit evidence. I proposed to account for the mismatch between narrow ancient deWnitions of iamboi as invective in iambic metres and the traditional corpus of iambic poetry, which displays thematic variety. To do so I have attempted to see past the Wlter of Aristotelian and Alexandrine scholarship from which ancient deWnitions stem, as well as past the Wlter of contemporary scholarship, which has tended to privilege a view of the genre depending on a single deWning feature, such as, in recent decades, that of performance scenario. In conclusion, rather than a deWnition of iambos as a genre, I suggest a reconstruction of the process by which the notion of iambos was reduced mainly to that of invective. Before that, however, I oVer a new lexicographical entry for the word YÆ that will help sum up the range of ancient uses of the term. In spite of their apparent objectivity, dictionary entries reXect comprehensive interpretations of the history of terms, which are in themselves contingent. They depend on current traditions of research that are historically, culturally, and often nationally bounded. Revisions of lexica are necessary not only due to the emergence of new evidence but also of new frameworks of interpretation. In the case of names of ancient Greek literary genres, dictionary entries stem from emerging or dominant approaches to the problematic of genre in general and speciWc genres in particular. Therefore, the new entry that I propose for the word YÆ encapsulates my own understanding of the various uses of the term
348
Final Remarks
through the archaic and classical periods: for naming a rhythm, a poem, a musical pattern, and a poetic genre for public performance that was eventually linked to invective and obscenity. YÆ [Ø] › I. iambic rhythm and iambic foot, Damon ap. Pl. R. 400b (perhaps iambic genos, i.e. the ratio 2:1, cf. Aristox. Rhyth. II p. 24 14–17), Arist. Rh. 1408b33, cf. Hsch. s.v. YÆ Ø (ÞıŁ Ø , ŒÆd ºÅ ŒÆd . . . r ØÆ ), Heph. 10.18, etc.; Œ ıº › ŒÆ a YÆ ¼ klkl (iambic dipody, with thesis and arsis of equal duration), P.Oxy. 2687, Aristid. Quint. p. 38.5. b iambic trimeter, AP 14.15.1, Jul. Ep. 10.403d. II. poem written in iambic, trochaic (i.e. in the iambic ratio), choliambic, and epodic metre, Archil. 215W, Hdt. 1.12.2, Ar. Ra. 661, Arist. Rh. 1418b28, 30. III. a nomos (musical pattern), Pollux 4.66, 4.83–4, Photius s.v. Ææ Æ Ø, esp. a section of the Pythian Nomos, Str. 9.3.10. b a sung poem? Phillis ap. Ath. 636b, Hsch. Ø 49, Suid. s.v. NÆ FŒÆØ, Photius s.v. NÆ FŒÆØ, cf. Chamaeleon ap. Ath. 620c, cf. Hsch. s.v. YÆ Ø. IV. poetic genre for public performance, Pl. Ion 534c, Lg. 935e (at competition), Arist. Pol. 1336b20 (at theatres), Lysanias ap. Ath. 620c, Clearchus ap. Ath. 620c (rhapsodic performance in theatres), Semus ap. Ath. 622a. 2 transf. the performers of such poems (¼ ÆP Œ ƺØ), Semus ap. Ath. 622a (¼ NÆ Ø Æ ? Timaeus ap. Ath. 181c). b poetic genre as carrier of invective or oVensive language, Pl. Lg. 935e, Arist. Po. passim, Pol. 1336b20, Call. iamb. 1.3, Phoenix 2.17, 6.1, AP 7.352, etc. 2 transf. the target of such poems Luc. Pseudol. 2. c poetic genre composed for either invective or praise, Procl. ap. Phot. Chrest. 319b15 V. V. invective in metre, EM 463.41–8 s.v. NÆ 2ª. b invective in prose? Asopodorus’ ŒÆ ƺªÅ YÆ Ø, Ath. 445b.
Final Remarks
349
Admittedly, we take as a petitio principii that iambos was already the name of a poetic genre by Archilochus’ time, for in fact we cannot tell exactly in which sense the term was used in the archaic period. Archaic testimonies suggest that the genre was associated with diVerent occasions of ritualized commensality and conviviality and with the general function of entertainment, which was felt as compatible with that of mitigating emotional distress. Evidence for iambos as the name of a type of rhythm (kl) goes back to the mid-Wfth century bce (hence iambeion for the iambic trimeter), and was probably part of the technical Greek musical vocabulary from the sixth century on. Such a rhythmical sense, understood as a ratio between short and long syllables in technical writings probably preserving a traditional use, could be the reason behind the use of iambos for poems in both iambic and trochaic metres. Iambos was also the name of a melodic pattern, and it is possible that poems considered iamboi were occasionally sung, in spite of the later unanimous classiWcation of the genre as non-melic. The ancients knew of no single occasion for the performance of iamboi. The general context of ritualized commensality and conviviality that I propose embraces the ritual, civic, and domestic spheres, and encompasses a range of scenarios with various degrees of inclusiveness, from the aristocratic symposion to public meals at religious festivals, as well as performance in competition. Such a variety of occasions for performance and re-performance implies that not only poets of aristocratic or (with Morris) ‘middling’ stance performed iamboi, but also slaves or paid professionals. At least from the fourth century bce on poems by some of the famous archaic poets were part of the rhapsodic repertoire, and in an unidentiWable regional tradition performances of iamboi seem to have conferred the name iamboi on their performers. That professional performers played some role in the transmission of iambic poetry appears as a real likelihood. The general elusiveness of semantic connotations for the term iambos before the fourth century bce suggests the possibility that the generic label was applied to a network of poems, generally recited but on occasion sung with musical accompaniment, composed in the rhythms covered by the iambic ratio. At that time Archilochus seems to have played a role in the categorization of iambos as a prototype of the genre. By the Wfth century bce the perception of Archilochus
350
Final Remarks
focuses mainly on invective, at the expense of the thematic variety of his poetic output. By mid-fourth century iambos, conceived as a poetic genre for public performance, appears in Plato and Aristotle as potential carrier of invective and obscenity (hence iambizein for abuse, as well as Aristotle’s hypothesis for the origins of the iambic metre), from which a hostile attitude ensues. What happened need not necessarily have happened. To avoid teleological thinking, let us consider alternative criteria that were available to the ancients for the categorization of iambos. . . . .
.
. .
.
From the point of view of metre and dialect, iambos is Ionian poetry. From the point of view of the number of performers, it is solopoetry. If, as I suggest, iamboi were occasionally sung, they could at times be classed as monody. From the point of view of the occasion of performance, iamboi could be classed as sympotic poetry, along with other types of poetry regardless of metre and mode of performance. Given that some iamboi were performed at festivals, they could be considered mainly a type of public entertainment, perhaps together with other poetic performances such as parody or the popular, pre-literary mime. From the point of view of content and function some iamboi could be grouped with silloi and abusive skolia as blame poetry. Alternatively some iamboi could be considered ‘light poetry’ or ‘erotic poetry’, along with other occasional poetry performed mainly for entertainment. Finally, from the point of view of length, although we cannot state what was the average number of lines for iamboi, we can tell that they were ostensibly shorter than, say, the Homeric epic poems.1 In this sense iamboi could be classed as short poems.
Although all these criteria of classiWcation were in principle available to ancient poets, audiences, and scholars for categorizing poetic genres, only some of them were actually used. As for the genre of 1 Bowie (2001b), 59, 62 suggests a possible length of c.200 lines for Archilochus’ tetrameters.
Final Remarks
351
iambos, except for the conceptual grouping with other types of psogoi, none of these possibilities was essentially part of the cultural choice by which iamboi came to be conceptualized from Aristotle on. Among several features of form, content, and performance that could have been taken as distinctive, it was invective that acquired the status of dominant feature of the genre. I suggest that this cultural choice2 has to do with the reception of iamboi through a matrix of speciWc concerns regarding freedom of speech and the civic and legal implications of personal reputation, particularly in fourthcentury bce Athens. This cultural choice also has to do with the application of a traditional rhetorical prism, the binary classiWcation of praise and blame that was by that time codiWed by handbooks of rhetoric. Thus, I suggest that in the course of the classical period we witness a development from a concept of the genre depending primarily on rhythm as well as on its prototypical representative, Archilochus, towards iambos as a genre deWned by virtue of what was perceived as its dominant feature, invective. This view crystallizes particularly in Aristotle’s conceptualization of iambos in the Poetics. Notwithstanding the acute insights that we found in some Hellenistic approaches to poetic genres, and ancient scholars’ actual knowledge of iambic poetry, the educational sources inherited from the Peripatetic tradition not only the notion of iambos as poetic invective (combined with the early notion of the appropriate metres), but also the low esteem in which the genre was regarded. Consequently, what emerged in the fourth century bce as a dominant feature of the genre became a deWning feature in handbooks and commentaries, which combined a speciWc set of metres with invective content (the ‘narrow iambos’). The sources that I included in the ‘Stoic and Epicurean Paradigms’ seem to have held an alternative to this view of iambos, based on a non-essentialist approach to genre that considered the role played by family resemblances in the formation of generic categories. 2 Although the notions of ‘cultural choices’ and ‘strategic possibilities’ are embedded in contemporary discourse of historical and literary studies, I should like to acknowledge the impact that their use for the Greek concept of literary Wction by Finkelberg (1998), 32–3, had on my intellectual development.
352
Final Remarks
A similar reduction took place in the perception of the poetic tradition. The Alexandrine canon of Archilochus, Semonides, and Hipponax probably contributed to obscuring the continuity of production and re-performance of iamboi during the Wfth and fourth centuries bce. At the same time Alexandrine editions of iamboi favoured metre as a main criterion for classiWcation, and thus preserved a corpus that is not covered by the narrow deWnition of ‘invective in iambic metres’ (the ‘received iambos’) and is therefore consistent with early uses of the generic label. Third-century bce Greek re-elaborations of the genre, as well as Wrst-century bce Latin ones, consciously engaged with the tensions created by dominant narrow deWnitions of the genre and reclaimed its early diversity. The possibility suggested in this reconstruction, that in early times the term iambos in its generic sense may have entailed rhythmical and prototypical connotations and only at a later stage a speciWc content (invective), implies that a deep terminology shift took place. I Wnd a useful comparison for such a shift in the use of the word ‘tabloids’ for newspapers with small pages and for the sensationalist press in general. Tabloid, a trademark for ‘tablet-like’ compressed pharmaceuticals, was registered in 1884. The connotation of ‘compressed’ was later applied to other small things, and also to compressed or sensationalist journalism.3 Thus a term originally applied to format was later used for content. Such shifts happen in cultural history. If this book is to make a contribution to the history of ancient Greek literature, I would hope it does so by enhancing awareness of the dynamic way in which poetic genres as conceptual categories are used in the vast chronological, geographical, and ethnic complexity that was the Ancient World. I will be satisWed if this challenge takes on rather modest forms, as the identiWcation of a minor iambic poet or an alternative edition of iambic poetry in a papyrus scrap, or of an allusion to a non-consensual view of iambos by a Roman poet. 3 Oxford English Dictionary, 19892, s.v.
Bibliography Acosta-Hughes, B. 2002. Polyeideia: The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic Tradition. Berkeley; London. Ahrens, H. L. 1843. De Graecae Linguae Dialectis. Vol. ii. Go¨ttingen. Allen, T. W., Halliday, W. R., and Sikes, E. E. (eds.), 1936. The Homeric Hymns. 2nd edn. Oxford. Aloni, A. 1993. Lirici greci: Poeti giambici. Milan. —— 2001. ‘What is that Man Doing in Sappho, Fr. 31 V?’ In A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni, and A. Barchiesi (eds.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham, Md. 29–40. —— 2006. ‘La performance giambica nella Grecia arcaica’. Annali OnlineLettere (Unife) 1.1: 83–107. Anderson, W. D. 1966. Ethos and Education in Greek Music: The Evidence of Poetry and Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass. Andrisano, A. M. 2001. ‘Iambic Motifs in Alcaeus’ Lyrics’. In A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni, and A. Barchiesi (eds.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham, Md. 41–63. Arans, O. 1988. ‘Iambe and Baubo: A Study in Ritual Laughter’. Diss. Urbana, Ill. Armstrong, D. 1995a. ‘The Impossibility of Metathesis: Philodemus and Lucretius on Form and Content in Poetry’. In D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York; Oxford. 210–32. —— 1995b. ‘Philodemus, On Poems Book 5, translated from the edition of Cecilia Mangoni’. In D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York; Oxford. 255–69. Arnaoutoglou, I. 1998. Ancient Greek Laws: A Sourcebook. London. Arnim, H. F. A. von 1903. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. 4 vols. Leipzig. Arthur Katz, M. 1994. ‘Politics and Pomegranates: An Interpretation of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter’. In H. P. Foley (ed.), The Homeric Hymn To Demeter. Princeton. Asheri, D. 1969. Leggi grecche sul problema dei debiti. Pisa. —— 1989. Erodoto, Le Storie. Vol. 1. Milan.
354
Bibliography
Asheri, D. 2007. ‘General Introduction’. In D. Asheri, A. Lloyd, and A. Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV. Oxford. 1–56. —— Lloyd, A., and Corcella, A. 2007. A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV. Oxford. Asmis, E. 1990. ‘The Poetic Theory of the Stoic ‘‘Aristo’’ ’. Apeiron 23: 147–201. —— 1991. ‘Philodemus’s Poetic Theory and On the Good King According to Homer’. CA 10: 1–45. —— 1992a. ‘Crates on Poetic Criticism’. Phoenix 46: 138–69. —— 1992b. ‘Neoptolemus and the Classification of Poetry’. CPh 87: 206–31. —— 1992c. ‘An Epicurean Survey of Poetic Theories (Philodemus on Poems 5, Cols. 26–36)’. CQ 42.2: 395–415. —— 1995a. ‘Epicurean Poetics’. In D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York; Oxford. 15–34. —— 1995b. ‘Philodemus on Censorship, Moral Utility, and Formalism in Poetry’. In D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York; Oxford. 148–77. —— 2004. ‘Philodemus on Sound and Sense in Poetry’. Cronache Ercolanesi 34: 5–27. Ast, D. F. 1814. Platonis Leges et Epinomis. Leipzig. —— 1836. Lexicon Platonicum. Leipzig. Avezz u, G. 1982. Alcidamante. Orazioni e frammenti. Rome. Babbitt, F. C., Cherniss, H. F., Hembold, W. C., and Sandbach, F. H., 1962. Plutarch’s Moralia. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Babut, D. 1976. ‘He´raclite critique des poe`tes et des savants’. AC 45: 464–96. Baehr, J. C. F. 1856–61. Herodoti . . . Musae. 2nd edn. 4 vols. Leipzig. Bakhtin, M. M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin. Bal, M. 1982. ‘Mimesis and Genre Theory in Aristotle’s Poetics’. Poetics Today 3.1: 171–80. Balme, D. M. 1972. Aristotle’s De partibus animalium I and De generatione animalium I (with passages from II. 1–3). Oxford. Barchiesi, A. 2001. ‘The Crossing’. In S. J. Harrison (ed.), Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory, and Classical Literature. Oxford. 142–63. Barker, A. 1982. ‘The Innovations of Lysander the Kitharist’. CQ 32: 266–9. —— 1984a. Greek Musical Writings. 2 vols. Vol. I: The Musician and his Art. Cambridge. —— 1984b. Greek Musical Writings. 2 vols. Vol. II: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory. Cambridge.
Bibliography
355
—— 1988. ‘Che cos’era la ‘‘Ma´gadis’’?’ In B. Gentili and R. Pretagostini (eds.), La musica in Grecia. Rome. 96–107. —— 1990. ‘Public Music as ‘‘Fine Art’’ in Archaic Greece’. In J. W. McKinnon (ed.), Antiquity and the Middle Ages: From Ancient Greece to the 15th Century. Basingstoke. 45–67. Barker, E. 1946. The Politics of Aristotle. Oxford. Barnes, J. 1982. Aristotle. Oxford; New York. Bartol, K. 1991. ‘Para¨netische Elemente in den Iamben von Archilochos’. Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium 8: 29–38. —— 1992a. ‘Where was Iambic Poetry Performed? Some Evidence from the Fourth Century BC’. CQ 42.1: 65–71. —— 1992b. ‘How was Iambic Poetry Performed? A Question of Ps.-Plutarch’s Reliability (Mus. 1141a)’. Euphrosyne 20: 269–76. —— 1993a. Greek Elegy and Iambus: Studies in Ancient Literary Sources. Poznan´. —— 1993b. ‘Some Remarks on Aristotle’s Poetics 1448b 24–32’. Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium 9: 5–9. Battegazzore, A. M. 1962. ‘Crizia’. In M. Untersteiner and A. M. Battegazzore (eds.), Sofisti: Testimonianze e frammenti. Florence. Belfiore, E. 2001. ‘Dramatic and Epic Time: ‘‘Magnitude’’ and ‘‘Length’’ in Aristotle’s Poetics’. In Ø. Andersen and J. Haarberg (eds.), Making Sense of Aristotle: Essays in Poetics. London. 25–49. Belis, A. 1999. Les Musiciens dans l’Antiquite´. Paris. Berlin, B. 1978. ‘Ethnobiological Classification’. In B. B. Lloyd and E. Rosch (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ. 9–26. Bernabe, A. 1996. Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum Testimonia et Fragmenta. 2nd edn. Vol. I. Leipzig. Berranger, D. 1992. Recherches sur l’histoire et la prosopographie de Paros a` l’e´poque archaı¨que. Clermont-Ferrand. Bidez, J., and Cumont, F. V. M. 1924. Imp. Caesaris Flavii Claudii Iuliani epistulae, leges, poematia, fragmenta varia. Vol. 1.2: Lettres et fragments. Paris. Blass, F. 1887. Die attische Beredsamkeit; Von Gorgias bis zu Lysias. 2nd edn. Leipzig. Blomfield, C. J. 1826. ‘On the Dramatic Representations of the Greeks’. Museum Criticum 2: 69–89. Blume, H.-D., Paulsen, T., and Schmidt, P. L. 2002. ‘Wettbewerbe, ku¨nstlerische’. Der neue Pauly. Stuttgart. Blumenthal, A. V. 1922. Die Scha¨tzung des Archilochos im Altertume. Stuttgart. —— 1923. Der Tyrann Kritias als Dichter und Schriftsteller. Stuttgart.
356
Bibliography
Boegehold, A. L. 1994. ‘Perikles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C.’ In A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. Baltimore; London. 57–66. Bolonyai, G. 1998. ‘Lyric Genres in Aristotle’s Poetics’. Acta Ant. Hung. 38: 27–39. Bonanno, M. G. 1971. Studi su Cratete comico. Padua. —— 1980. ‘Nomi e Soprannomi Archilochei’. MH 37: 65–88. Bonaria, M. 1988. ‘Mimografi: Rapporti con altri generi letterari e artistici’. In F. Della Corte (ed.), Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini. Milan. 1359 ff. Bonnitz, H. 1955. Index Aristotelicus. 2nd edn. Graz (original edn. 1870). Bossi, F. 1986. Studi sul Margite. Ferrara. —— 1990. Studi su Archiloco. 2nd edn. Bari. Bowie, E. L. 1986. ‘Early Greek Elegy, Symposium and Public Festival’. JHS 106: 13–35. —— 1988. ‘Le Portrait de Socrate dans les Nue´s d’Aristophane’. In M. Trede´ and P. Hoffmann (eds.), Le Rire des anciens. Paris. 53–66. —— 1997. ‘Plutarch’s Citations of Early Elegiac and Iambic Poetry’. In C. Schrader, V. Ramo´n, and I. Vela (eds.), Plutarco y La Historia. Actas del V Simposio Espan˜ol sobre Plutarco. Zaragoza. 99–108. —— 2000. ‘Athenaeus’ Knowledge of Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry’. In D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World. Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Exeter. 124–135. —— 2001a. ‘Early Greek Iambic Poetry: The Importance of Narrative’. In A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni, and A. Barchiesi (eds.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham, Md. 1–27. —— 2001b. ‘Ancestors of Historiography in Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry?’ In N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Oxford. 45–66. —— 2002a. ‘Ionian Iambos and Attic Komoidia: Father and Daughter, or Just Cousins?’ In A. Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy. Oxford. 33–50. —— 2002b. ‘Sympotic Praise’. Gaia 6: 169–99. —— forthcoming a. ‘Simonides of Eretria (Redivivus?)’. In R. V. Catling (ed.), Festschrift for Elaine Matthews. —— forthcoming b. ‘The Birth of the Theognidea: Time and Place?’ Bowra, C. M. 1934. ‘Timocreon’s Œ ºØ on Themistocles’. Hermes 69: 350–2. Brandenstein, W. 1936. ‘‘YÆ , Ł% Æ , ØŁ%Æ ’’. Indogermanische Forschungen 54: 34–8. Brandwood, L. 1990. The Chronology of Plato’s Dialogues. Cambridge. Broggiato, M. 2001. Cratete di Mallo: I frammenti. Edizione, introduzione e note. La Spezia.
Bibliography
357
Brown, C. G. 1983. ‘From Rags to Riches: Anacreon’s Artemon’. Phoenix 37. 1: 1–15. —— 1988. ‘Hipponax and Iambe’. Hermes 117: 478–81. —— 1990. ‘Honouring the Goddess: Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter’. Aegyptus 70: 173–89. —— 1997. ‘Iambos’. In D. E. Gerber (ed.), A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets. Leiden; New York; Cologne. 13–88. —— 2006. ‘Pindar on Archilochus and the Gluttony of Blame (Pyth. 2.52–6)’. JHS 126: 36–46. Brumfield, A. 1981. The Attic Festivals of Demeter and their Relation to the Agricultural Year. Salem, NH. Bultrighini, U. 1999. Maledetta democrazia: Studi su Crizia. Chieti Scalo. Bundrick, S. D. 2005. Music and Image in Classical Athens. New York, NY; Cambridge. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Oxford. Burton, R. W. 1962. Pindar’s Pythian Odes. Oxford. Burtt, J. O. 1962. Minor Attic Orators. 2 vols. Vol. 2. London; Cambridge, Mass. Bury, R. G. 1967. Plato, Laws. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Cairns, D. L. 1993. Aido¯s: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford. Calame, C. 1974. ‘Re´flexions sur les genres litte´raires en Gre`ce archaı¨que’. QUCC 17: 111–28. —— 1998. ‘La Poe´sie lyrique grecque, un genre inexistant?’ Litte´rature 111: 87–110. —— 2001. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Functions. Lanham, Md. —— 2004. ‘Deictic Ambiguity and Auto-Referentiality: Some Examples from Greek’. Arethusa 37.3: 415–43. Cameron, A. 1995. Callimachus and his Critics. Princeton. Campbell, D. A. 1988. Greek Lyric. 5 vols. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Carey, C. 1986. ‘Archilochus and Lycambes’. CQ 36.1: 60–7. Carter, L. B. 1986. The Quiet Athenian. Oxford; New York. Casadio, V. 1996. I ‘‘dubbi’’ di Archiloco. Ospedaletto. Cassio, A. C. 1984. ‘L’accusa di Crizia e le piu` antiche valutazioni di Archiloco’. In Lirica greca da Archiloco a Elitis: Studi in onore di Filippo Maria Pontani. Padua. 61–5. —— 2002. ‘The Language of Doric Comedy’. In A. Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy. Oxford. 51–83. Castillo Herera, M. d. 1990. La me´trica latina en el siglo IV. Diomedes y su entorno. Granada.
358
Bibliography
Cavarzere, A., Aloni, A., and Barchiesi, A. (eds.), 2001. Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham, Md. Centanni, M. 1997. Atene assoluta: Crizia dalla tragedia alla storia. Padua. Chantraine, P. C. 1933. La Formation des noms en Grec ancien. Paris. Cingano, E. 1995. ‘Pitica Seconda’. In B. Gentili (ed.), Pindaro. Le Pitiche. Verona. —— 2003. ‘Entre skolion et enkomion: re´flexions sur le ‘‘genre’’ et la performance de la lyrique chorale grecque’. In J. Jouanna and J. Leclant (eds.), Colloque: La Poe´sie grecque antique. Paris. 17–45. Clay, D. 2004. Archilochos Heros: The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis. Baltimore. Clinton, K. 1992. Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Stockholm. —— 2007. ‘The Mysteries of Demeter and Kore’. In D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion. 342–56. Cobet, J. 2002. ‘The Organization of Time in the Histories’. In E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, and H. van Wees (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Leiden; Boston; Cologne. 387–412. Compton, T. 1990. ‘The Trial of the Satirist: Poetic Vitae (Aesop, Archilochus, Homer) as Background for Plato’s Apology’. AJPh 111: 330–47. Connor, W. R. 1971. The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens. Princeton. Conte, G. B. 1992. ‘Empirical and Theoretical Approaches to Literary Genres’. In K. Galinsky (ed.), The Interpretation of Roman Poetry: Empiricism or Hermeneutics? Frankfurt am Main. 104–23. —— 1994. Genres and Readers: Lucretius, Love Elegy, Pliny’s Encyclopedia. Trans. G. W. Most. Baltimore; London. Conti Bizzarro, F. 1999. Poetica e critica letteraria nei frammenti dei poeti comici greci. Naples. Corr^ea, P. d. C. 1998. Armas e Varo˜es, a Guerra na Lı´rica de Arquı´loco. Sa˜o Paulo. —— 2008. ‘The Muses buy a Cow’. In D. Katsonopoulou, I. Petropoulos, and S. Katsarou (eds.), Archilochos and his Age. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades (Paroikia, Paros, 7–9 October 2005). Athens. 191–202. Couvreur, P. 1901. Hermiae Alexandrini in Platonis Phaedrum Scholia. Paris; repr. Hildesheim 1971. Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton; Oxford. Crowther, N. B., and Frass, M. 1998. ‘Flogging as a Punishment in the Ancient Games’. Nikephoros 11: 51–82.
Bibliography
359
Csapo, E. (ed.), 2007. The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond: From Ritual to Drama. Cambridge. —— and Slater, W. J., eds. 1995. The Context of Ancient Drama. Ann Arbor. Cunningham, I. C. 1971. Herodas Mimiambi. Oxford. Curtius, E. R. 1953. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans. W. R. Trask. London. Dahiyat, I. 1974. Avicenna’s Commentary on the Poetics of Aristotle. Leiden. Dahlmann, H. 1953. Varros Schrift ‘de poematis’ und die hellenistischro¨mische Poetik. Wiesbaden. Dale, A. M. 1963. ‘Stichos and Stanza’. CQ 13: 46–50. D’Alessio, G. B. 2004. ‘Past Future and Present Past: Temporal Deixis in Greek Archaic Lyric’. Arethusa 37.3: 267–94. Dammer, R. 2001. Diomedes Grammaticus. Trier. D’Andrade, R. G. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge; New York. D’Angour, A. 1997. ‘How the Dithyramb Got its Shape’. CQ 47: 331–51. Davidson, J. 2000. ‘Gnesippus Paigniagraphos: The Comic Poets and the Erotic Mime’. In D. Harvey and J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies In Athenian Old Comedy. London. Davies, M. 1985. ‘Conventional Topics of Invective in Alcaeus’. Prometheus 11.1: 31–9. —— 1988. Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Go¨ttingen. Defradas, J. 1954. ‘Les The`mes de la propagande delphique’. Diss. Paris. Degani, E. 1983. Poesia parodica greca. 2nd edn. Bologna. —— 1984. Studi su Ipponatte. Bari. —— 1988a. ‘Giambici Poeti’. In Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini. Milan. 1005–33. —— 1988b. ‘Giambo e Commedia’. In E. Corsini (ed.), La polis e il suo teatro/2. Padua. 157–79. —— 1991. Hipponactis testimonia et fragmenta. 2nd edn. Leipzig. Del Grande, C. 1948. ‘Damone Metrico’. Giornale Italiano di Filologia 1: 3–16. Dentzer, M. M. 1982. Le Motif du banquet couche´ dans le proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe sie`cle avant J.-C. Rome. Depew, D. 2007. ‘From Hymn to Tragedy: Aristotle’s Genealogy of Poetic Kinds’. In E. Csapo (ed.), The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond: From Ritual to Drama. Cambridge. 126–49. Depew, M. 1992. ‘NÆ E ŒÆº E ÆØ F: Genre, Occasion, and Imitation in Callimachus, frr. 191 and 203Pf ’. TAPhA 122: 313–30. —— and Obbink, D. (eds.), 2000. Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, Mass.; London.
360
Bibliography
Derrida, J. 1980. ‘The Law of Genre’ (trans. Avital Ronell). Critical Inquiry 7.1: 55–81. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. 1975. ‘Aristotle on History and Poetry: Poetics 9, 1451a36–B11’. In B. Levick (ed.), The Ancient Historian and his Materials. Farnborough. 45–58. —— 2004. Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays, ed. D. Harvey and R. Parker. Oxford. Desbordes, F. Diome`de. CTFL: Corpus de textes linguistiques fondamentaux [cited 25 Nov. 2007]. Available from http://ctlf.ens-lsh.fr/n_fiche. asp?num¼1207. Des Places, E´. 1964. Platon, uvres comple`tes. Vol. 14: ‘Lexique’. Paris. Detienne, M. 1973. Les Maıˆtres de ve´rite´ dans la Gre`ce archaı¨que. 2nd edn. Paris. Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste. Berlin. Dickey, E. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford; New York. Dies, A. 1956. Platon. Les Lois. Vol. 11–12. Paris. Dilts, M. R. 1994. ‘Hiatus in the Orations of Aeschines’. AJPh 115.3: 367–73. Di Marco, M. 1989. Timone di Fliunte, Silli. Rome. Dougherty, C. 1993. The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece. New York; Oxford. Dover, K. J. 1964. ‘The Poetry of Archilochos’. Archiloque, Entretiens sur L’antiquite´ classique, Fondation Hardt 10: 183–222. —— 1974. Greek Popular Morality. Oxford. —— 1993. Aristophanes. Frogs. Oxford. —— 1997. The Evolution of Greek Prose Style. Oxford. Dumezil, G. 1943. Servius et la Fortune: Essai sur la fonction sociale de louange et de blaˆme et sur les e´le´ments Indo-Europe´ens du cens Romain. Paris. D€ uring, I. 1945. ‘Studies in Musical Terminology in 5th Century Literature’. Eranos 42: 176–97. Ebert, T. 2001. ‘Why is Euenus Called a Philosopher at Phaedo 61c?’ CQ 51: 423–34. Einarson, B., and De Lacy, P. H. 1967. Plutarch’s Moralia. Vol. 14. Cambridge, Mass. Else, G. F. 1957. Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Cambridge, Mass. —— 1986. Plato and Aristotle on Poetry. Chapel Hill; London. England, E. B. 1921. The Laws of Plato. 2 vols. Manchester; London. Ernout, A., and Meillet, A. 1959. Dictionnaire ´etymologique de la langue latine: Histoire des mots. 4th edn. Paris. Evelyn-White, H. G. 1936. Hesiod. Homeric Hymns. Epic Cycle. Homerica. 2nd edn. Cambridge, Mass. (original edn. 1914).
Bibliography
361
Eysenck, M. W., and Keane, M. T. 1995. Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. Hove. Fantuzzi, M. 1980. ‘La contaminazione dei generi letterari nella letteratura greca ellenistica. Rifiuto del sistema o evoluzione di un sistema?’ Lingua e Stile 15: 433–50. —— and Hunter, R. L. 2004. Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge. F€ arber, H. 1936. Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike. Munich. Farnell, L. R. 1932. The Works of Pindar. Critical Commentary. Vol. 2. London. Fearn, D. 2007. Bacchylides: Politics, Performance, Poetic Tradition. New York. Fehling, D. 1989. Herodotus and his ‘Sources’: Citation, Invention and Narrative Art. Leeds. Fehr, B. 1990. ‘Entertainers at the Symposion: The Akletoi in the Archaic Period’. In O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. 185–95. Ferrante, D. 1957. Crestomazia: Introd., testo, trad. e comm. degli estratti relativi ai generi letterari, Luoghi paralleli, Ciclo e Vita di Omero. Naples. Finkelberg, M. 1998. The Birth of Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece. Oxford. —— 2006. ‘Regional Texts and the Circulation of Books’. GRBS 46.3: 231–48. —— and Stroumsa, G. A. G. 2003. Homer, the Bible, and beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Leiden. Fishelov, D. 1992. ‘The Concept of Genres in Aristotle’s Poetics: Classification, Description and Evaluation’. Dappim Lemechkar Basiphrut 8: 45– 62 (in Hebrew). —— 1993. Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory. Pennsylvania. —— 1995. ‘The Structure of Generic Categories: Some Cognitive Aspects’. Journal of Literary Semantics 24.2: 117–26. Fisher, N. R. E. 1992. Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece. Warminster. —— 2000. ‘Symposiasts, Fish-Eaters and Flatterers: Social Mobility and Moral Concerns in Old Comedy’. In F. D. Harvey and J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy. London. 355–96. Fluck, H. 1931. Skurrile Riten in griechischen Kulten. Endingen. Foley, H. P. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays. Princeton. Ford, A. 1988. ‘The Classical Definition of % Æłfiø Æ ’. CPh 83: 300–7.
362
Bibliography
Ford, A. 2002. The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton; Oxford. —— 2006a. ‘The Genre of Genres: Paeans and Paian in Early Greek Poetry’. Poetica 38.3–4: 277–95. Ford, A. 2006b. Herodotus and the Poets [cited 9 Dec. 2006]. Available from http://www.princeton.edu/pswpc/papers/authorAL/ford/ford.html. Fowler, A. 1982. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Oxford. Fowler, R. L. 1987. The Nature of Early Greek Lyric: Three Preliminary Studies. Toronto; Buffalo; London. —— 1990. ‘Two More New Verses of Hipponax (and a Spurium of Philoxenus)?’ ICS 15: 1–22. Fr€ ankel, H. 1969. Dichtung und Philosophie des fru¨hen Griechentums. Munich. —— 1975. Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy. Oxford. Franklin, J. C. 2003. ‘The Language of Musical Technique in Greek Epic Diction’. Gaia 7: 295–307. Frazer, J. G. 1911. The Golden Bough. 3rd edn., 12 vols. London. —— 1921. Apollodorus. The Library. 2 vols. London; New York. Frede, D. 1992. ‘Necessity, Chance, and ‘‘What happens for the Most Part’’ in Aristotle’s Poetics’. In A. O. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics. Oxford. 197–219. Frisch, H. 1942. The Constitution of the Athenians: A Philological-Historical Analysis of Pseudo-Xenofon’s Treatise De re publica Atheniensium. Copenhagen. Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wo¨rterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg. Furley, W. D., and Bremer, J. M. 2001. Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Vol. I: The Texts in Translation. Tu¨bingen. Gallavotti, C. 1949. ‘Archiloco’. PP 4: 130–53. Garzya, A. 1963. Studi sulla lirica greca. Messina. Gasparri, C. 1982. ‘Archiloco a Taso’. QUCC ns 11: 33–41. Gavins, J., and Steen, G. 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London. Genette, G. 1977. ‘Genres, ‘‘Types’’, Modes’. Poetique 32: 389–421. Gentili, B. 1988a. Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece. Trans. A. T. Cole. Baltimore; London (original Italian edn. 1984). —— 1988b. ‘Metro e ritmo nella dottrina degli antichi e nella prassi della ‘‘performance’’ ’. In B. Gentili and R. Pretagostini (eds.), La musica in Grecia. Rome; Bari. 5–16. —— and Lomiento, L. 2003. Metrica e ritmica: Storia delle forme poetiche nella Grecia antica. Milan.
Bibliography
363
—— and Prato, C. 1988. Poetarum elegiacorum testimonia et fragmenta. 2nd edn. Leipzig. Gerber, D. E. 1999a. Greek Iambic Poetry: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Cambridge, Mass.; London. —— 1999b. Greek Elegiac Poetry: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Gerhard, G. A. 1914. ‘Iambographen’. RE 17: 651–80. Gernet, L. 1981. The Anthropology of Ancient Greece. Trans. John Hamilton and Blaise Nagy. Baltimore (original French edn. 1968). Giordano, D. 1977. Chamaeleontis Heracleotae Fragmenta. Bologna. Godley, A. D. 1920. Herodotus. 4 vols. London. Goodwin, W. W. 1904. Demosthenes, On The Crown. London. Gow, A. S. F., and Page, D. L. 1968. The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams. 2 vols. Cambridge. Graf, F. 1974. Eleusis und die Orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Berlin. Grandolini, S. 1999. ‘Didimo e la classificazione della poesia lirica’. Giornale Italiano di Filologia 51: 1–22. Grant, M. A. 1924. The Ancient Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable. Madison. Graziosi, B. 2002. Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic. Cambridge. Greenberg, N. A. 1990 (written in 1955). The Poetic Theory of Philodemus. New York; London. Gudeman, A. 1931. ‘The Sources of Aristotle’s Poetics’. In G. D. Hadzsits (ed.), Classical Studies in Honor of John C. Rolfe. Philadelphia. 75–100. —— 1934. Aristoteles — æd —ØÅ ØŒB. Berlin and Leipzig. Gulick, C. B. 1955. Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Deipnosophists. 7 vols. London. Guthrie, W. K. C. 1952. Orpheus and Greek Religion. 2nd edn. London. Halliwell, S. 1986. Aristotle’s Poetics. London. —— 1987. The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary. London. —— 1991a. ‘Comic Satire and Freedom of Speech in Classical Athens’. JHS 111: 48–70. —— 1991b. ‘The Uses of Laughter in Greek Culture’. CQ 41.2: 279–96. —— 1995. Poetics. Cambridge, Mass. —— 2000. ‘Le Rire rituel et la nature de l’Ancienne Come´die Attique’. In M.-L. Desclos (ed.), Le Rire des grecs: Anthropologie du rire en Gre`ce ancienne. Grenoble. 155–68. Hamilton, R. 2004. Review of Kevin Clinton, Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Stockholm, 1992). BMCR 20 04.03.22.
364
Bibliography
Hammerstaedt, J. 1997. ‘Pausone, Aristofane e Archiloco nel quarto libro —¯! —ˇ˙ `$/˝ di Filodemo’. Cronache Ercolanesi 27: 105–20. Handley, E. W. 1985. ‘Comedy’. In P. Easterling (ed.), Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Cambridge. Hardy, J. 1952. Poe´tique. 2nd edn. Paris. Harriott, R. 1969. Poetry and Criticism before Plato. London. Harrison, S. J. 2001. ‘Some Generic Problems in Horace’s Epodes: Or, On (Not) Being Archilochus’. In A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni, and A. Barchiesi (eds.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham, Md. 165–86. —— 2007. Generic Enrichment in Vergil and Horace. Oxford. Harvey, A. E. 1955. ‘The Classification of Greek Lyric Poetry’. CQ 5: 157–75. Hauvette, A. 1905. Archiloque, sa vie et ses poe´sies. Paris. Hawkins, T. 2008. ‘Out-Foxing the Wolf-Walker: Lycambes as Performative Rival to Archilochus’. CA 27: 93–114. Heath, M. 1987. Political Comedy in Aristophanes. Vol. 87. Go¨ttingen. —— 1988. ‘Receiving the Œø: The Context and Performance of Epini~ cian’. AJPh 109: 180–95. —— 1989. ‘Aristotelian Comedy’. CQ 39.2: 344–54. —— 1990. ‘Aristophanes and his Rivals’. G&R 2nd ser. 37. 2: 143–58. —— 1996. Aristotle: Poetics. Harmondsworth. Henderson, J. 1991. The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy. 2nd edn. New Haven; London. Henry, W. B. 1998. ‘An Archilochus Papyrus?’ ZPE 121: 94. Herington, J. 1985. Poetry into Drama: Early Tragedy and the Greek Poetic Tradition. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London. Hester, D. A. 1965. ‘ ‘‘Pelasgian’’—A New Indo-European Language?’ Lingua 13: 335–84. Hillgruber, M. 1990. ‘Zur Zeitbestimmung der Chrestomathie des Proklos’. RhM 133: 397–404. Hock, R. F. 1986. The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Atlanta. Hollis, A. S. 2007. Fragments of Roman Poetry c. 60 BC–AD 20. Oxford. Hordern, J. H. 2003. ‘Gnesippus and the Rivals of Aristophanes’. CQ 53.2: 608–13. How, W. W., and Wells, J. 1912. A Commentary on Herodotus. Vol. I. Oxford. Hubbard, T. K. 1994. ‘Elemental Psychology and the Date of Semonides of Amorgos’. AJPh 115.2: 175–97. Hunter, R. 2002. ‘ ‘‘Acting Down’’: The Ideology of Hellenistic Performance’. In P. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession. Cambridge. 189–206.
Bibliography
365
Huss, B. 1999. Xenophons Symposion: Ein Kommentar. Stuttgart; Leipzig. Huxley, G. 1972. ‘On Aristotle’s Historical Methods’. GRBS 13.2: 157–69. —— 1973. ‘Aristotle as Antiquary’. GRBS 14.3: 271–86. Iannucci, A. 2002. La parola e l’azione: I frammenti simposiali di Crizia. Bologna. Irwin, E. 2005a. Solon and Early Greek Poetry: The Politics of Exhortation. Cambridge. —— 2005b. ‘Gods among Men? The Social and Political Dynamics of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women’. In R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge. 35–84. Jackendoff, R. 2004. ‘Categorization, Fuzziness, and Family Resemblances’. In B. Aarts (ed.), Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader. Oxford. 109–29 (original edn. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass. 1983, ch. 5). Jacoby, F. 1941. ‘The Date of Archilochos’. CQ 35: 97–109. Jaeger, W. W. 1945. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Trans. G. Highet. 2nd English edn., 3 vols. Vol. 1. Oxford. Jakobson, R. 1987. ‘The Dominant’. In K. Pomorska and S. Audy (eds.), Language in Literature. Cambridge, Mass. 41–6. Janda, M. 2000. Eleusis: Das indogermanische Erbe der Mysterien. Innsbruck. Janell, W. 1901. ‘Quaestiones Platonicae’. Jahrbu¨cher fu¨r classische Philologie 26: 265–336. Janko, R. 1984. Aristotle on Comedy: Towards a Reconstruction of Poetics II. London. —— 1991. ‘Philodemus’ On Poems and Aristotle’s On Poets’. Cronache Ercolanesi 21: 5–64. —— 1995. ‘Reconstructing Philodemus’ On Poems’. In D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York; Oxford. 69–96. —— 2000. Philodemus. On Poems, Book 1. Oxford. Jones, H. L. (1917–1932). The Geography of Strabo. 8 vols. Cambridge, Mass. Jurenka, H. 1900. Archilochos von Paros. Vienna. Kalinka, E. 1913. Die pseudoxenophontische `¨˙˝`/˝ —ˇ¸$¯`: ¨ bersetzung, Erkla¨rung. Leipzig; Berlin. Einleitung, U Kantzios, I. 2005. The Trajectory of Archaic Greek Trimeters. Leiden. Kapchan, D. A. 1995. ‘Performance’. Journal of American Folklore 108: 479–508. K€ appel, L. 1992. Paian: Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung. Berlin. Kassel, R. 1965. Aristotelis de arte poetica liber. Oxford. —— 1971. Der Text der Aristotelischen Rhetorik. Berlin; New York. Kaster, R. A. 1988. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley.
366
Bibliography
Katsonopoulou, D., Petropoulos, I., and Katsarou, S. (eds.), 2008. Archilochos and his Age. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades (Paroikia, Paros, 7–9 October 2005). Athens. Keil, B. 1888. ‘Epikratische Studien’. Hermes 23. Kennedy, G. A. 1991. Aristotle On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York; Oxford. —— 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton. Kerkhecker, A. 1996. ‘Archilochus fr. 139 West: Another ! łÆØ-Poem?’ ZPE 111: 26. —— 1999. Callimachus’ Book of Iambi. Oxford. Kolk, D. 1963. Der pythische Apollonhymnus als aitiologische Dichtung. Meisenheim am Glan. Kontoleon, N. M. 1964. ‘Archilochos und Paros’. Archiloque, Entretiens sur l’antiquite´ classique, Fondation Hardt 10: 37–86. —— 1970. Aspects de la Gre`ce Pre´classique. Paris. Korzeniewski, D. 1968. Griechische Metrik. Darmstadt. Koster, S. 1980. Die Invektive in der Griechischen und Ro¨mischen Literatur. Meisenheim am Glan. Koster, W. J. W. 1962. Traite´ de me´trique grecque. 3rd edn. Leyde. Kotsidu, H. 1991. ‘Die Musischen Agone der Panathena¨en in Archaischer und Klassischer Zeit’. Diss., Univ. Frankfurt (Main), Munich. Kowalzig, B., and Wilson, P. (eds.), forthcoming. Song-Culture and Social Change: The Contexts of Dithyramb. Oxford: OUP. Kraut, R. 1997. Aristotle, Politics Books VII And VIII. Oxford. Kro¨hnert, O. 1897. ‘Canonesne poetarum scriptorum artificium per antiquitatem fuerunt?’ Diss., Ko¨nigsberg. Kugelmeier, C. 1996. Reflexe fru¨her und zeitgeno¨ssischer Lyrik in der alten attischen Komo¨die. Stuttgart; Leipzig. Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edn. Chicago (original edn. 1962). Kurke, L. V. 2007. ‘Archaic Greek Poetry’. In H. A. Shapiro (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece. Cambridge. 142–68. Labov, W. 2004. ‘The Boundaries of Words and their Meanings’. In B. Aarts (ed.), Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader. Oxford. 67–89 (original edn.: C.-J. Bailey and R. W. Shuy (eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC, 1973. 340–73). Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago; London. Lanata, G. 1963. Poetica pre-platonica. Testimonianza e Frammenti. Florence.
Bibliography
367
Landi, C. 1925. ‘La chiusa della ‘‘Poetica’’ di Aristotele nel codice Riccardiano 46’. Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica ns 3: 551–5. Lanza, D. 1983. ‘Aristotele e la poesia: un problema di classificazione’. QUCC 42.2: 51–66. —— 1987. Poetica / Aristotele. Milan. Lapini, W. 1995. ‘I frammenti Alcibiadei di Crizia: Crizia amico di Alcibiade?’ Prometheus 21: 1–14 (1), 111–30 (2). Lardinois, A. P. M. H. 2006. ‘Have We Solon’s Verses?’ In J. H. Blok and A. P. M. H. Lardinois (eds.), Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches. Leiden. Larson, J. 2007. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York; London. Lasserre, F. 1954. Plutarque, De la Musique. Lausanne. —— 1979. ‘Iambische Dichtung und antike Theorien u¨ber den Iambos bis Aristoteles’. Acta Philologica Aenipontana 4: 59–61. —— and Bonnard, A. 1958. Archiloque. Fragments. Paris. Lateiner, D. 1989. The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto. Lausberg, H. 1998. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Leiden; Boston; Cologne. Lavelle, B. M. 2002. ‘The Apollodoran Date for Archilochus’. CPh 97.4: 344–51. Lavigne, D. E. 2005. ‘Iambic Configurations: Iambos from Archilochus to Horace’. Diss., Stanford University. —— 2008. ‘The Persona of Archilochus and Iambic Performance’. In D. Katsonopoulou, I. Petropoulos, and S. Katsarou (eds.), Archilochos and his Age. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades (Paroikia, Paros, 7–9 October 2005). Athens. 91–113. Leduc, C. 1976. La Constitution d’Athe`nes attribue´e a` Xe´nophon. Paris. Lee, E. T. Y. 1993. ‘The NÆ ØŒc NÆ from Iambic Poetry to Attic Old Comedy’. Ph.D. Diss., Yale University, New Haven. Lefkowitz, M. 1976. The Victory Ode. New Jersey. —— 1981. The Lives of the Greek Poets. London. Legrand, P. E. 1964. He´rodote, Histoires. Paris. Lennartz, K. 2000a. ‘Zum ‘‘erweiterten’’ Jambusbegriff ’. RhM 143.3–4: 225–50. —— 2000b. ‘Zu Archilochos Fragment 19 (West)’. MH 57.1: 1–9. Leonhardt, J. 1991. Phalloslied und Dithyrambos. Heidelberg. Leutsch, E. L. A., and Schneidewin, F. G. 1839. Paroemiographi Graeci. Go¨ttingen. Lightfoot, J. L. 2002. ‘Nothing to do with the Technitai of Dionysus?’ In P. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession. Cambridge. 209–24.
368
Bibliography
Lipsius, J. H. 1912. Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren. Leipzig. Lloyd, A. B. 1975. Herodotus, Book II. Introduction. Leiden. Lloyd, G. E. R. 1966. Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought. Cambridge. —— 1996. Aristotelian Explorations. Cambridge. —— 2007. Cognitive Variations: Reflections on the Unity and Diversity of the Human Mind. Oxford. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1952–3. ‘The Gyges Fragment: A New Possibility’. PCPhS 182: 36–43. —— 1966. ‘Problems of Early Greek Tragedy: Pratinas and Phrynichus’. Estudios sobre la tragedia griega, Cuadernos de la Fundacio´n Pastor 13: 11–33. —— 1990. Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy: The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones. Oxford. Lobel, E. 1933. The Greek Manuscripts of Aristotle’s Poetics. Oxford. —— 1950. ‘A Greek Historical Drama’. Proceed. Brit. Acad. 35: 207–16. Locker, E. 1944. Ru¨ckla¨ufiges Wo¨rterbuch der griechischen Sprache. go¨ttingen. Lomiento, L. 1993. Cercidas: Testimonia et fragmenta. Roma. —— 2001. ‘Da Sparta ad Alessandria: La trasmissione dei testi nella Grecia antica’. In M. Vetta (ed.), La civilta` dei greci: Forme, luoghi, contesti. Rome. 297–355. —— unpublished. ‘Lezioni Urbinati per il corso di metrica e ritmica greca’. Longo, A. 1995. ‘Sull’attribuzione della Crestomazia a Proclo neoplatonico’. SIFC (Studi Italiani di filologia classica) 13: 109–24. Lord, C. 1974. ‘Aristotle’s History of Poetry’. TAPhA 104: 195–229. Lorenzoni, A. 1995. ‘Platone ‘‘Novello Archiloco’’ e l’ ‘‘Aureo’’ Gorgia (Athen. XI 505de; Plat. Phaedr. 235d–236b)’. Eikasmos 6: 109–20. Lowe, N. J. 2007. ‘Epinikian Eidography’. In S. Hornblower and C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford. 167–76. Lubell, W. M. 1994. The Metamorphosis of Baubo. Nashville; London. Lucas, D. W. 1968. Aristotle, Poetics. Oxford. Luppe, W. 1973. ‘Das Auffu¨hrungsdatum der ‘‘Archilochoi’’ des Kratinos’. Philologus 117: 124–7. Luraghi, N. 2006. ‘Meta-historie¯: Method and Genre in the Histories’. In C. Dewald and J. Marincola (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. 76–91. Maas, P. 1903. ‘Der byzantinische Zwo¨lfsilber’. Byz. Zeitschr. 12: 278–323. MacDowell, D. M. 1978. The Law in Classical Athens. Plymouth. —— 1990. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Oration 21). Oxford. McInerney, J. 1994. ‘Politicizing the Past: The Atthis of Kleidemos’. ClAnt 13.1: 17–37.
Bibliography
369
McMahon, A. P. 1917. ‘On the Second Book of Aristotle’s Poetics and the Source of Theophrastus’ Definition of Tragedy’ HSCP 28: 1–46. Mangoni, C. 1993. De Poematis. Liber 5. Naples. Mankin, D. 1995. Epodes. Cambridge. Marcaccini, C. 2001. Costruire un’identita`, scrivere la storia: Archiloco, Paro e la colonizzazione di Taso. Florence. Marcovich, M. 1967. Heraclitus. Greek Text with a Short Commentary. Merida. Marincola, J. 2006. ‘Herodotus and the Poetry of the Past’. In C. Dewald and J. Marincola (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge. 13–28. Masson, O. 1962. Les Fragments du poe`te Hipponax. Paris. Maykowska, M. 1934. ‘De Critiae moribus fortunis litteris’. In Charisteria Gustavo Przychocki a Discipulis Oblata. Warsaw. 119–39. Miller, A. M. 1981. ‘Pindar, Archilochus and Hieron in P. 2.52–56’. TAPhA 111: 135–43. Minchin, E. 2002. ‘Speech Acts in the Everyday World and in Homer: The Rebuke as a Case Study’. In I. Worthington and J. M. Foley (eds.), Epea and Grammata: Oral and Written Communication in Ancient Greece. Leiden. 71–97. Miralles, C. 1989. ‘La tradizione giambica’. QS 29: 111–32. —— and Po`rtulas, J. 1983. Archilochus and the Iambic Poetry. Rome. Momigliano, A. 1969. ‘Ideali di vita nella sofistica: Ippia e Crizia’. In Quarto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico. Rome. 145–54. —— 1993. The Development of Greek Biography. Expanded edn. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Montmollin, D. d. 1951. La Poe´tique d’Aristote. Texte primitif et additions ulte´rieures. Neuchaˆtel. Morel, W. 1928. ‘Emendationen im Athenaeus’. RhM 77: 160–73. Morgan, T. 1998. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge. Morris, I. 1996. ‘The Strong Principle of Equality and the Archaic Origins of Greek Democracy’. In J. Ober and C. W. Hedrick (eds.), Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern. Princeton. 19–48. Morrow, G. R. 1960. Plato’s Cretan City. Princeton. Most, G. W. 2000. ‘Generating Genres: The Idea of the Tragic’. In M. Depew and D. Obbink (eds.), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, Mass.; London. 15–35. Muir, J. V. 2001. Alcidamas. The Works & Fragments. London. M€ ulke, C. 2002. Solons politische Elegien und Iamben (Fr. 1–13; 32–37 W). ¨ bersetzung, Kommentar. Leipzig. Einleitung, Text, U
370
Bibliography
Murray, A. T., and Dimock, G. 1995. Homer, The Odyssey. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.; London. —— and Wyatt, W. F. 1999. Homer, Iliad. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Murray, O. 1980. Early Greece. London. —— 1983. ‘The Greek Symposion in History’. In E. Gabba and A. Momigliano (eds.), Tria Corda: Scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano. Como. 257–72. Murray, O. (ed.), 1990a. Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. —— 1990b. ‘Sympotic History’. In O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. 3–13. —— 2007. ‘David Asheri’. In David Asheri, Alan Lloyd, Aldo Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV, ed. O. Murray and A. Moreno. Oxford. xi–xiv. Murray, P. 1996. Plato on Poetry. Cambridge. Nachmanson, E. 1969. Der griechische Buchtitel: Einige Beobachtungen. Darmstadt. Nagy, G. 1976. ‘Iambos: Typologies of Invective and Praise’. Arethusa 9: 191–205. —— 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore. —— 1990. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore. —— 1994–5. ‘Genre and Occasion’. Me´tis 9–10: 11–25. —— 1996. Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond. Cambridge; New York. —— 2007. ‘Part II: Emergence of Drama: Introduction and Discussion’. In E. Csapo (ed.), The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond: From Ritual to Drama. Cambridge. 121–5. Nisbet, R. G. M. 1961. M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio. Oxford. —— and Hubbard, M. 1978. A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book II. Oxford. Noussia, M. 2001. ‘Solon’s Symposium (frs. 32–4 and 36 Gentili-Prato2 ¼ 38–40 and 41 West2)’. CQ 51.2: 353–9. Obbink, D. 1995. ‘How to Read Poetry about Gods’. In D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York; Oxford. 189–209. —— 2005. ‘4708. Archilochus, Elegies (more of VI 854 and XXX 2507)’. P.Oxy. 69: 18–42. —— 2006. ‘A New Archilochus Poem’. ZPE 156: 1–9. Ober, J. 1998. Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule. Princeton.
Bibliography
371
O’Higgins, D. M. 2001. ‘Women’s Cultic Joking and Mockery: Some Perspectives’. In A. Lardinois and L. McClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society. Princeton; Oxford. 137–60. O’Higgins, L. 2003. Women and Humor in Classical Greece. Cambridge. Oldfather, C. H. 1963. Diodorus Siculus: Library of History. 12 vols. London; Cambridge, Mass. Olender, M. 1985. ‘Aspects de Bauboˆ’. Revue de l’histoire des religions 202: 3–55. —— 1990. ‘Aspects of Baubo: Ancient Texts and Contexts’. In D. M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler, and F. I. Zeitlin (eds.), Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient World. Princeton. 83–113. Olivieri, A. 1946. Frammenti della commedia Greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella Magna Grecia. 2nd edn. Vol. 1. Naples. Olson, S. D. 2006. Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters. Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, Mass.; London. —— 2007. Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy. New York. Ophuijsen, J. M. V. 1987. Hephaistion on Metre: A Translation and Commentary. Leiden. Osborne, R. G. 1985. ‘Law in Action in Classical Athens’. JHS 105: 40–58. —— 2001. ‘The Use of Abuse: Semonides 7’. PCPhS 47: 47–64. Ostwald, M. 1986. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley; London. Pace, N. 1995. ‘Problematiche di poetica in Filodemo’. Cronache Ercolanesi 25: 111–90. Palmer, L. R. 1980. The Greek Language. London. Pangle, T. L. 1988. The Laws of Plato. Chicago; London. Parke, H. W. 1946. ‘Citation and Recitation: A Convention in Early Greek Historians’. Hermathena 67: 80–92. —— 1958. ‘The Newly Discovered Delphic Responses from Paros’. CQ 8: 90–4. —— and Wormell, D. E. W. 1956. The Delphic Oracle. 2 vols. Oxford. Parker, R. 1991. ‘The Hymn to Demeter and Homeric Hymns’. G&R 38: 1– 17. —— 1996. Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford. Pearson, L. 1975. ‘Hiatus and its Purposes in Attic Oratory’. AJPh 96: 138–59. —— 1978. ‘Hiatus and its Effect in the Attic Speech-Writers’. AJPh 108: 131–45. —— 1990. Aristoxenus. Elementa Rhythmica. Oxford.
372
Bibliography
Pellizer, E. 1990. ‘Outlines of a Morphology of Sympotic Entertainment’. In O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. 177–84. —— 1991a. ‘Per una morfologia della poesia giambica arcaica’. In K. Fabian, E. Pellizer, and G. Tedeschi (eds.), Oinhra Teuxh: Studi triestini de poesia conviviale. Alessandria. 15–29. —— 1991b. ‘Lineamenti di una morfologia dell’intrattenimento simposiale’. In K. Fabian, E. Pellizer, and G. Tedeschi (eds.), ˇ˝˙!` $¯+˙: Studi Triestini Di Poesia Conviviale. Alessandria. 3–13. Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford. Porter, J. I. 1995. ‘ˇƒ ŒæØ ØŒ : A Reassessment’. In J. G. J. Abbenes, S. R. Slings, and I. Sluiter (eds.), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle. Amsterdam. 83–109. —— 2007. ‘Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the Riddle of S’. CQ 57. 1: 1–21. Po`rtulas, J. 2006. ‘Crizia di Atene e la leggenda Archilochea’. In D. Lanza and F. Roscalla (eds.), L’autore e l’opera: Attribuzioni, appropriazioni, apocrifi nella Grecia antica. Pavia. 175–91. Powell, J. E. 1938. A Lexicon to Herodotus. Cambridge. Race, W. H. 1997. Pindar. Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes. Cambridge, Mass.; London. Radermacher, L. 1918. ‘Iambe und Iambus’. Beitra¨ge zur Volkskunde aus dem Gebiet der Antikes. 78–85. Rankin, H. D. 1975. ‘ Øå , ºª ŒÆd %Ø . Critias and his Judgement of Archilochus’. GB 3: 323–34. —— 1977. Archilochus of Paros. New York. Reeve, M. D. 1971. ‘Hiatus in the Greek Novelists’. CQ 21: 514–39. Reich, H. 1903. Der Mimus. Berlin. Reisch, E. 1885. ‘De musicis Graecorum certaminibus’. Diss. Vienna. —— 1894. ‘Agones’. RE I. 1: 836–67. Reitzenstein, R. 1893. Epigramm und Skolion: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Alexandrinischen Dichtung. Giessen. Richardson, N. J. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford. Ridgway, B. S. 1998. ‘An Issue of Methodology: Anakreon, Perikles, Xanthippos’. American Journal of Archaeology 102.4: 717–38. Rijksbaron, A. 2007. Ion, or, On the Iliad. Leiden. Rispoli, G. M. 2005. ‘¨Æ Æ e giudizio ‘‘poetico’’ ’. Cronache Ercolanesi 35: 71–81. Riu, X. 2003. ‘Sobre los ge´neros literarios en la literature griega’. Myrtia 18: 21–56. Rix, H. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Prima¨rstammbildungen. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden. Robertson, N. 1980. ‘Timocreon and Themistocles’. AJPh 101: 61–78. Rohde, E. 1878. ‘ˆª in den Biographica des Suidas’. RhM 33: 161–220.
Bibliography
373
Rose, V. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Leipzig. Rosen, R. M. 1988a. Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition. Atlanta. —— 1988b. ‘A Poetic Initiation Scene In Hipponax?’ AJPh 109: 174–9. —— 1988c. ‘Hipponax, Boupalos, and the Conventions of the Psogos’. TAPhA 118: 29–41. —— 1988d. ‘Hipponax and his Enemies in Ovid’s Ibis’. CQ 36. 2: 291–6. —— 2003. ‘The Death of Thersites and the Sympotic Performance of Iambic Mockery’. Pallas 61: 121–36. —— 2007a. Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire. Oxford. —— 2007b. ‘The Hellenistic Epigrams on Archilochus and Hipponax’. In P. Bing and J. S. Bruss (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Leiden; Boston. 459–76. Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1985. ‘Ancient Literary Genres: A Mirage?’ Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature 34: 74–84. Rosh, E. 1978. ‘Principles of Categorization’. In B. B. Lloyd and E. Rosch (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ. 27–48. Ro¨sler, W. 1976. ‘Die Dichtung des Archilochos und die neue Ko¨lner Epode’. RhM 119: 289–310. —— 1980. Dichter und Gruppe: Eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen und zur historischen Funktion fru¨her griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios. Munich. —— 1990. ‘Mnemosyne in the Symposion’. In O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. 230–7. ¨ ber Aischrologie in archaischen und klassischen Griechenland’. —— 1993. ‘U In S. Do¨pp (ed.), Karnavaleske Pha¨nomene in antiken und nachantiken Kulturen und Literaturen, Bochumer altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 13. 75–97. Rossi, L. E. 1971. ‘I Generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle letterature classiche’. BICS 18: 69–95. —— 2000. ‘Musica e psicologia nel mondo antico e nel mondo moderno: La teoria antica dell’ethos musicale e la moderna teoria degli affetti’. In A. C. Cassio, D. Musti, and L. E. Rossi (eds.), Synaulı´a: Cultura musicale in Grecia e contatti mediterranei. Naples. 57–96. Rostagni, A. 1926–7. ‘Il Dialogo aristotelico — æd —ØÅ H’. RFIC 54: 433–70 and 55: 145–73. —— 1927. La Poetica d’Aristotele, con introduzione, commento e appendice critica. Turin. Rotstein, A. 1999. ‘Greek Iambic Poetry as a Literary Genre’. Ph.D. Diss. Proposal presented to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in February 1999. Jerusalem. —— 2000. Review of M. Finkelberg, The Birth of Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece (OUP, 1998). SCI 19: 285–9.
374
Bibliography
Rotstein, A. 2002. ‘Greek Iambic Poetry as a Literary Genre: A Study of References to Iambos from Archilochus to Aristotle’. Diss., the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. —— 2004. ‘Aristotle, Poetics 1447a13–16 and Musical Contests’. ZPE 149: 39–42. —— 2007a. ‘Critias’ Invective against Archilochus’. CPh 102: 139–54. —— 2007b. ‘A histo´ria da poesia no capı´tulo 4 da Poe´tica de Aristo´teles (Poe´tica 1448b20–1449b9)’. Trans. Alexandre Pinheiro Hasegawa. In M. e. a. dos Santos II Simpo´sio de Estudos Cla´ssicos da USP. Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo. 21–37. —— 2008. ‘ ‘‘I do not care about iamboi’’ (Archil. 215 W)’. In D. Katsonopoulou, I. Petropoulos, and S. Katsarou (eds.), Archilochos and his Age. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades (Paroikia, Paros, 7–9 October 2005). Athens. 65–80. —— in progress. ‘Mousikoi Agones and the Conceptualization of Genres in Ancient Greece’. Russell, D. A. 1995. Criticism in Antiquity. 2nd edn. Bristol. —— and Winterbottom, M. (eds.), 1972. Ancient Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in New Translations. Oxford. Rusten, J. 1977. ‘Wasps 1360–1369: Philokleon’s $/¨` ˇ’. HSCPh 81: 157–61. —— 2006. ‘Who ‘‘Invented’’ Comedy? The Ancient Candidates for the Origins of Comedy and the Visual Evidence’. AJPh 127: 37–66. Rutherford, I. 1995. ‘Apollo’s Other Genre: Proclus on and his Source’. CPh 90.4: 354–61. —— 2001. Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre. Oxford. Saunders, T. J. 1970. Plato, The Laws. Harmondsworth. —— 1972. ‘Notes on the Laws of Plato’. BICS Suppl. 28. Saxonhouse, A. W. 2006. Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens. Cambridge; New York. Sbordone, F. 1976. *غı æd ØÅ ø: Tractatus tres. Ricerche sui papiri Ercolanesi 2. Scafuro, A. C. 1997. The Forensic Stage: Settling Disputes in Graeco-Roman New Comedy. Cambridge. Schefold, K. 1997. Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker. Basel. Schiesaro, A. 2001. ‘Dissimulazioni giambiche nell’ Ibis’. In F. Bertini (ed.), Giornate filologiche ‘‘Francesco Della Corte’’ II. Genoa. 125–36. Schmid, W. 1894. ‘Zur antiken Stillehre aus Anla von Proklos’ Chrestomathie’. RhM 49: 133–61.
Bibliography
375
Schmitt-Pantel, P. 1990. ‘Sacrificial Meal and the Symposion: Two Models of Civic Institutions in the Archaic City?’ In O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. 14–33. —— 1992. La Cite´ au banquet: Histoire des repas publics dans les cite´s grecques. Rome. Schweighaeuser, J. 1802. Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas. Argentorati. Scodel, R. 1983. ‘Timocreon’s Encomium of Aristides’. ClAnt 2: 102–7. Seaford, R. 1984. Euripides’ Cyclops. Oxford. —— 1993. Review of Ju¨rgen Leonhardt, Phalloslied und Dithyrambos: Aristoteles u¨ber den Ursprung des griechischen Dramas. CR ns 43.1: 189. Selden, D. L. 2000. ‘Genre of Genre: In M. Depew and D. Obbink (eds.), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, Mass.; London. 39–64. Severyns, A. 1938. Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos, Premie`re partie: le Codex 239 de Photius. Vol. 1: E´tude pale´ographique et critique. Vol. 2: Texte, Traduction, Commentaire. Paris. Shapiro, H. A. 1992. ‘Mousikoi Agones: Music and Poetry at the Panathenaia’. In J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens. Princeton. 53–75. Sider, D. 1995. ‘Epicurean Poetics: Response and Dialogue’. In D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York; Oxford. 35–41. Siems, K. 1974. ‘Aischrologia: Das Sexuell-Ha¨ssliche im antiken Epigramm’. Diss., Go¨ttingen. Sinding, M. 2002. ‘After Definitions: Genre, Categories, and Cognitive Science’. Genre 35.2: 181–220. Slater, W. J. 1991. Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor. Smyth, H. W. 1906. Greek Melic Poets. London. Souter, A. 1949. A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. Oxford. Stallbaum, G. 1859. Platonis Leges et Epinomis. Vol. X, Sect. I. London; Gotha-Erfurt. Steffen, G. 1876. De canone qui dicitur Aristophanis et Aristarchi. Leipzig. Steffen, V. 1952. Satyrographorum graecorum fragmenta. Poznan´. —— 1964. Chamaeleontis fragmenta. Warsaw. Stehle, E. M. 1994. ‘Cold Meats: Timokreon on Themistokles’. AJPh 115: 507–24. —— 1997. Performance and Gender in Ancient Greece: Nondramatic Poetry in its Setting. Princeton. Stein, H. 1883. Herodotus. Berlin. Stein, O. 1931. ‘Klearchos von Soloi’. Philologus 40: 258–9.
376
Bibliography
Steiner, D. 1986. The Crown of Song: Metaphor in Pindar. London. Steinr€ uck, M. 2000. Studien zum Publikum einer Gattung in der fru¨hgriechischen Literatur. Hildesheim; Zurich; New York. Stephans, D. 1939. Critias, Life and Literary Remains. Cincinnati. Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London. Stoneman, R. 2004. ‘The Legacy of Alexander in Ancient Philosophy’. In J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great. Leiden. 325–45. Strauss Clay, J. 1986. ‘Archilochus and Gyges: An Interpretation of Fr. 23 West’. QUCC 24: 7–17. Suarez de la Torre, E. 2002. Yambo´grafos Griegos. Madrid. S€ uss, W. 1910. Ethos: Studien zur a¨lteren griechischen Rhetorik. Leipzig; Berlin. Sutton, D. F. 1974. ‘A Handlist of Satyr Plays’. HSCPh 78: 107–43. Szegedy-Maszak, A. 1981. The Nomoi of Theophrastus. New York. Tanner, R. H. 1920. ‘The %å ºåØ of Cratinus and Callias › ºÆŒŒ ºı ’. TAPhA 51: 172–87. Taplin, O. 1993. Comic Angels. Oxford. Tarditi, G. 1956. ‘La nuova epigrafe archilochea e la tradizione biografica del poeta’. PP 11: 122–39. —— 1968. Archilochus. Rome. Thesleff, H. 1967. Studies in the Styles of Plato. Helsinki. Thompson, W. H. 1868. The Phaedrus of Plato. London. Tigerstedt, E. N. 1968. ‘Observations on the Reception of the Aristotelian Poetics in the Latin West’. Studies in the Renaissance 15: 7–24. Treadgold, W. T. 1980. The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius. Washington, DC. Treu, M. 1959. Archilochos. Munich. Trinkaus, C. 1966. ‘The Unknown Quatrocento Poetics of Bartolommeo della Fonte’. Studies in the Renaissance 13: 40–122. Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton. Untersteiner, M. 1955. Senofane: Testimonianze e frammenti. Florence. Valckenaer, C., and Wesseling, P. 1763. Herodoti Halicarnassei Historiarum Libri IX. Amsterdam. Van Sickle, J. B. 1975. ‘The New Erotic Fragment of Archilochus’. QUCC 20: 123–56. Vardi, A. D. 2001. ‘Genre and the Book: The Role of Poetry Collections and Anthologies in the Development of Literary Genres in the Hellenistic and Roman World’. In N. Wasserman (ed.), Wool from the Loom: The Development of Literary Genres in Ancient Literature. Jerusalem. 47–60 (in Hebrew).
Bibliography
377
—— 2003. ‘Canons of Literary Texts at Rome’. In M. Finkelberg and G. Stroumsa (eds.), Homer, the Bible and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Leiden. 131–52. Verdin, H. 1977. ‘Les Remarques critiques d’He´rodote et de Thucydide sur la poe´sie en tant que source historique’. In Historiographia antiqua: Commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenarii editae. Louvain. 53–76. Versnel, H. S. 1970. Triumphus: An Enquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden. Vetta, M. 1992. ‘Il Simposio: La monodia e il giambo’. In G. Gambiano, L. Canfora, and D. Lanza (eds.), Lo Spazio letterario della Grecia antica. Rome. 177–218. Von Scheliha, R. 1987. Vom Wettkampf der Dichter: Der musische Agon bei den Griechen. Amsterdam. Vox, O. 1984. ‘Bacchilide e Timocreonte contro Temistocle’. Prometheus 10: 117–20. Wachsmuth, C. 1855. Sillographorum Graecorum Reliquiae. Leipzig. Wallace, R. W. 1991. ‘Damone di Oa ed i suoi successori: Un’analisi delle fonti’. In R. Wallace and B. Maclachlan (eds.), Harmonia Mundi: musica e filosofia nell’ antichita`. Rome. 30–54. —— 1993. ‘The Athenian Laws against Slander’. Symposion 109–24. —— 1994. ‘Private Lives and Public Enemies: Freedom of Thought in Classical Athens’. In A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. Baltimore; London. 127–55. —— 1998. ‘The Sophists in Athens’. In D. Boedeker and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens. Cambridge, Mass. 203–22. —— 2004. ‘Damon of Oa—a Music Theorist Ostracized?’ In P. Wilson and P. Murray (eds.), Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City. Oxford; New York. 249–67. Wankel, H. 1976. Demosthenes: Rede fu¨r Ktesiphon u¨ber den Kranz. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Heidelberg. Ward, D. 1973. ‘On the Poets and Poetry of the Indo-Europeans’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 1: 127–44. Wartelle, A. 1982. Lexique de la ‘‘Rhe´torique’’ d’Aristote. Paris. Watson, L. 2003. A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes. Oxford. Wehrli, F., ed. 1967. Die Schule des Aristoteles. 2nd edn. Vol. 1: Dikaiarchos. Vol. 2: Aristoxenos. Vol. 9: Chamaileon. Basel. Weil, H. 1883. Les Plaidoyers politiques de De´mosthe`ne. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Paris. Weil, R. 1960. Aristote et l’histoire: Essai sur la ‘Politique’. Paris.
378
Bibliography
Weil, R. 1977. ‘Aristotle’s View of History’. In J. Barnes, M. Schofield, and R. Sorabji (eds.), Articles on Aristotle 2: Ethics and Politics. London. 202– 17. (original edn. Entretiens XI, 1964). Weir, A., and Jerman, J. 1999. Images of Lust: Sexual Carvings on Medieval Churches. London; New York. Welcker, F. G. 1817. Hipponactis et Ananii iambographorum fragmenta. Go¨ttingen. —— 1844. ‘Archilochus’. In Kleine Schriften. Bonn (original edn. 1816). West, M. L. 1966. Hesiod. Theogony. Oxford. —— 1971. ‘Stesichorus’. CQ 21: 302–14. —— 1974. Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus. Berlin; New York. —— 1978. Hesiod. Works and Days. Oxford. —— 1981a. ‘Melos, Iambos, Elegie und Epigramm’. In E. Vogt (ed.), Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft: Griechische Literatur. Wiesbaden. 73–142. —— 1981b. ‘The Singing of Homer and the Modes of Early Greek Music’. JHS 101: 113–29. —— 1982. Greek Metre. Oxford. —— 1984. ‘Music in Archaic Greece’. In Proceedings of the VIIth Congress of the International Federation of the Society of Classical Studies. Budapest. —— 1992. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. —— 1993. Greek Lyric Poetry. The Poems and Fragments of the Greek Iambic, Elegiac, and Melic Poets (excluding Pindar and Bacchylides) down to 450 bc. Oxford. West, S. 1988. ‘Archilochus’ Message-Stick’. CQ 38: 42–8. Whitehead, D. 2000. Hypereides. The Forensic Speeches. Oxford. Whittaker, M. 1935. ‘The Comic Fragments in their Relation to the Structure of Old Attic Comedy’. CQ 29: 181–91. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1921. Griechische Verskunst. Berlin. —— 1922. Pindaros. Berlin. Williams, F. 1994. ‘Archilochus and the Eunuch: The Persistence of a Narrative Pattern’. Classics Ireland 1: 96–112. Wilson, N. G. 1983. Scholars of Byzantium. London. Wilson, P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: The Chorus, the City and the Stage. Cambridge. —— 2003. ‘The Sound of Cultural Conflict: Kritias and the Culture of Mousikeˆ in Athens’. In C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration. Cambridge; New York. 181–206. —— 2004. Review of A. Iannucci, La Parola e l’azione: I Frammenti simposiali di Crizia (Bologna, 2002). BMCR 2004.09.16.
Bibliography
379
—— 2007a. ‘Sicilian Choruses’. In P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford. 351–77. —— 2007b. ‘Performance in the Pythion: The Athenian Thargelia’. In P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford. 150–82. Winkler, J. J. 1990. ‘The Some Two Sources of Literature and its ‘‘History’’ in Aristotle, Poetics 4’. In M. Griffith and D. J. Mastronarde (eds.), Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honour of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer. Atlanta. 307–18. Wittgenstein, L. 1968. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. 3rd edn. Oxford. Wright, W. C. F. 1913. The Works of the Emperor Julian. 3 vols. London; Cambridge, Mass. Yatromanolakis, D. 2004. ‘Ritual Poetics in Archaic Lesbos’. In D. Yatromanolakis and P. Roilos (eds.), Greek Ritual Poetics. Washington, DC. 56–70. Yunis, H. 2001. Demosthenes, On the Crown. Cambridge. Zanetto, G. 2001. ‘Iambic Patterns in Aristophanic Comedy’. In A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni, and A. Barchiesi (eds.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham, Md. 65–76. Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley; Oxford.
This page intentionally left blank
Index Locorum Adesp. Eleg. 8W: 162 Aelian Varia Historia 10.13: 300 Aelius Aristides Orationes 46.293 Anacreon Eleg. 3W: 164 Anacreontea 8: 164 Ananius fr. 1W: 204 (¼ Hipponax) fr. 5.1W: 219 Apollodorus Bibliotheca 1.29–30: 174 Archilochus 5.3W: 163 11W: 153, 154 19W: 64, 198 19.1W: 163, 197 122W: 64 215W: 27, 151 24.8–9W: 163 25.2W: 199 114.1–2W: 303 251W: 296 324W: 259 324.1W: 288 Aristophanes Frogs 374–5: 170 416–7: 170 659–661: 202 Clouds 962: 214 Aristotle Poetics 1447a13–16: 70 1448b20–1449b9: 76–7
1448b28–32: 63, 100, 101 1448b31: 120 1449b5–9: 104 1451a36–b15: 106 1458b 3–12: 44 1462b16–9: 68 Politics 1336b3–6: 326 1336b12–23: 261, 325 Rhetoric 1398b11–2: 293 (Alcidamas) 1408b32–1409a1: 62, 186 1418b23–33: 63–4 Aristoxenus of Selinus fr. 1 Austin: 214 Aristoxenus of Tarentum Elementa Rhythmica II p. 24, ll. 14–17: 186 Athenaeus 181c: 267 (¼ Timaeus FGrH 566 F 140) 296f: 50 445b: 51 505d–e: 298 599d: 292 620c: 252 (Chamaeleon), 263 (Chamaeleon, Clearchus, Lysanias) 621d–f: 272–3 (¼ Sosibius, FGrH 595 F 10) 622a–d: 269–70 (¼ Semus of Delos, FGrH 396 F 24) 636b: 238 (Phillis of Delos, On Music 2) 698b: 46 (Polemon of Ilion) (¼ Hippon. 128W) CEG 674: 294 Cratinus fr. 6 Austin: 290 (Archilochoi) fr. 220 Austin: 214 Critias fr. 4W: 210
382
Index Locorum
Demosthenes 21.47: 245 Dio Chrysostom 33.17: 303 Diomedes Grammaticus de poematibus, GL I p. 476, 18 – 477, 20: 122 p. 485: 7 p. 485, 11: 119 p. 485, 11–17: 126–7 Diogenes Laertius 5.88: 67 9.1: 256 (¼ Heraclitus 42 DK) 9.18: 42 9.20: 42 Etymologicum Magnum s.v. Å (463.27): 120, 121 s.v. Å (463.28): 121 s.v. NÆ çª (463.41–8): 281, 332 Epicharmus Logos and Logina fr. 77 Austin: 41, 214, 217, 220 The Marriage of Hebe fr. 51 Austin: 219 Periallus fr. 108 Austin: 235 Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. º ª: 116 Euenus fr. 6W: 337, 238, 239 Eupolis Heliotes 148 Austin: 238 Harpocration Lexicon 175: 50 Hephaestion Enchiridion 8.2–3: 214 Fragmenta Hephaestionea p. 78.7: 119 Heraclitus DK 42: 256 (¼ DL 9.1) Hermias in Phdr. 238 (Couvreur): 337
Herodotus 1.12.5–8: 188 1.47.2: 190 1.62.4: 190 1.85: 196 1.174.5: 190 2.49: 218 2.135: 195 5.60.1: 190 5.61.1: 190 5.102: 195 5.113: 195 7.220.3: 190 Hesychius s.v. `æØ ºÅ: 67 s.v. Łæ Æ : 120 s.v. YÆ Ø: 119 s.v. NÆ : 234 s.v. ÆæØÆ : 234 s.v. ŒÆ Æ: 281 Homer Iliad 1.490–1: 160 6.450–5: 162 17.367: 160 24.129–30: 160 Odyssey 6.270–2: 162 18.36–39: 157 19.346–7: 169 Homeric Hymn to Demeter 192–205: 168 Hypereides adv. Philippum 3: 282 Julian Epistulae 10: 37 Nicander Alexipharmaka 132: 174 P.Oxy. 1800 fr. 1: 35 Philicus Hymn to Demeter SH fr. 80.55: 174
Index Locorum Philodemus On Poems 1, col. 77: 141 1, col. 117: 36, 139 Photius Chrestomathia (¼ Bibliotheca) 319b15 V.: 133 321a28–30: 281 Lexicon ŁæØ ı (Ł p. 94, 1.25): 120 Pindar O. 9.1–15: 288 P. 2.52–6: 285 Plato Ion 531a: 258 534b8–c7: 206 Laws 829b–3: 91 n. 112, 242 n. 49 934d6–e1: 322 934e2–4: 320 935a1–b2: 323 935e3–8: 209, 241, 259, 320 957c–d: 92 n. 113 Phaedo 60d8–e1: 336 Phaedrus 267a: 334 Republic 400a–c: 184 Plutarch Quomodo adulescens poetas audire debeat 33a–b: 154 De tranquilitate animi 10.470b–c: 198 (¼ Archil. 19W) [Plutarch] On Music 1134d: 230 Proclus ap. Phot., Chrestomathia 319b15 V.: 133 321a28–30: 281
383
Quintilianus Institutio Oratoria 10.1.59: 28 schol. to Aristophanes’ Birds 1764: 259 schol. to Aristophanes’ Frogs 659–61: 202 schol. to Dionysios Thrax p. 475 20 Hilgard: 43 schol. Oxon. to Aelius Aristides Or. 46.294: 47 schol. ABT to the Iliad 2.212: 46 schol. to Pindar O. 10.83b: 49 schol. to Pindar P. hyp. a 27–8: 251 SEG XII.4.227: 178 SEG XVI.478: 177 SEG XXVII.280: 178 SEG XXXIV.610: 178 Semus of Delos FGrH 396 F 24: 269–70 (¼ Ath. 622a–d) Sosibius FGrH 595 F 10: 272–3 (¼ Ath. 621d–f) Strabo 9.3.10.9–18: 248–9 Suda s.v. ¸ (¸ 139): 187 s.v. Æç ( 107): 35 s.v. Ø Å ( 444): 51 s.v. $ØŒæø ($ 624): 47 Theognis 54W: 160 60W: 160 983–8W: 158 1063–8W: 158 Timaeus of Tauromenium FGrH 566 F 140: 267 (¼ Ath. 181c) Tzetzes Alleg. Hom. Il. 24.125–34: 153 in Lycophronem 2.18 Scheer: 28
General Index abuse, see invective Aelian VH 10.13 300–4 Aeschines of Sardis 50 Aeschrion of Mytilene 50 Aeschrion of Samos 34, 49, 50, 53–6 aischrologia (obscene language) 18, 26, 57, 66, 101, 110, 343, 171–81, 261–2, 319, 325–8 Alexis’ Archilochus 292, 317 Anacreon of Teos 18, 39–40, 53–6, 164 (eleg. 3W), 247, 282, 303 Anacreontea 53, 164 (fr. 8), 197 Ananius 40–1 and Epicharmus 219–20 edition 41, 203 in the iambic canon 28, 41 ischiorrhogic metre 205, 220 fr. 1W 201–6, 222 confused with Hipponax 40–1, 202–3 and iambos 18, 34, 40–1, 53–5 Apollodorus of Athens 234–7, 240 Apollonius › Nªæç 132 Apollonius Rhodius 31, 114 Archilochus ‘Archilochus lyricus’ 232–4, 289 n. 30 fr. 11W 153–60 fr. 19W 64–6, 198–201, 222, 312 fr. 215W 27, 151–66, 182, 223–4, 253, 276, 342, 348 fr. 251W (song to Dionysos) 296–7 fr. 324W (Hymn to Demeter) 259, 288–9 Archilochus, reception of ancient quotations 30–1 (Athenaeus), 63–5 (Aristotle), 153–4 (Plutarch), 152–3 (Tzetzes) not in Aristotle’s history of poetry 111 biography 305–8 as comedy character 289–93, 317 and Critias 300–17 cult of 293–8 and Delphi 181, 287, 295–7
and democratic ideology 291, 310–13, 316–17 editions 29–31, 41, 114–5, 142–3, 203 in Herodotus 188–201 in the iambic canon 27–34, 113 iconography of 232–4 as nom parlant 313–4 and other poets 343 with table 6; 292 (Alexis), 289–92, 312 (Cratinus), 292–3 (Diphilus), 252, 258, 263–4, 290, 313 (Hesiod), 32–3, 292–3, 318, 343–4 (Hipponax), 141, 252, 256–9, 263–4, 290–3, 313 (Homer), 284–9 (Pindar), 292–3 (Sappho) in Paros 293–8 poet of praise and blame 259, 284–9, 317 prototype of invective 281–319, 343–4, 349 as term of abuse 298–9, 317 Aristarchus 28, 31, 114 Aristophanes of Byzantium 31, 39, 114–5 Aristotle on genres 69–73, 108 on the history of poetry 74–88 on iambos as a literary genre 67–8, 73, 108–111 use of the term iambos 61–6 see also iambike idea Aristoxenus of Selinus 21, 41, 55, 213–23, 268, 275 Aristoxenus of Tarentum 105, 185–6, 237–40 Asopodorus of Phlius 18, 34, 51–3, 348 autokabdaloi 255, 267–76, 348 Baubo 176–82 Bibaculus 127–9 Callimachus 31–3, 37, 52, 65, 128 Catullus 11, 127–9
General Index Cercidas 20, 34, 53 Chamaeleon 113, 252, 263–5 choliambic metre 20, 31–2, 49, 115, 124, 175, 204–6, 348 chunking 8, 11–13, 55, 130, 344 Clearchus of Soli 113, 263–5, 348 Crates of Mallos 30, 139, 143 Cratinus Archilochuses 289–92, 312, 316–7, 343 fr. 6 KA 290 Critias 210–12, 300–17 fr. 4W 210–12 44 DK, from a sympotic poem 303–5, 315–16 Damon of Oa 184–8, 222 deikelistai 255, 273–5 Demetrius of Scepsis 115 Demodocus of Leros 51 diabole (rhetorical slander) 281, 308–9 see also invective Didymus 132 Diomedes Grammaticus 7, 119–30, 144 Diphilus 49, 53–6, 88 Sappho 292–3, 317–18, 343 dominant (or salient) feature 10–13, 16, 19–26, 55–7, 145–7, 293 Dorian iambos, hypothesis of 41, 213–23, 255, 275–6 embodiment 8, 11–12, 124, 258 Epicharmus 41, 213–24, 268, 276 fr. 108 KA (Periallus) 235–7 Eucleides of Athens 7, 44–6, 53–6, 340 Euenus of Paros and iambos 50, 54–5 parapsogos 333–41 Eupolis Heilotes fr. 148 Austin 238–40 family resemblance 8–9, 13, 16, 23–6, 140–3, 146, 351 genres, ancient views of Aristotelian Paradigm 145–6 Aristotle 69–73, 108 as convention 137–142 Educational Paradigm 146
385
Hellenistic theories 136–147 Stoic and Epicurean Paradigm 146–7, 351 genres, literary 3–16 cognitive view of 3–16 contamination of genres 13, 141 corpus and genre 15 deWnition 13 ‘hard’ vs. ‘soft’ genres 14, 52 Glaucus of Rhegium 67, 113, 230–2 Heraclides Ponticus 31, 67, 113 Heraclitus fr. 42 DK 256–9, 289, 343 Hermippus of Athens 18, 34, 48, 53–6, 88 Hermippus of Smyrna 114–5, 298–9 Herodotus and Archilochus (1.12) 188–201 and iambos 188–201, 212, 223–4 and metre 190–3, 196, 212 and poetry 189–96 and poets 194–6 Herondas 20, 52 Hipponax ancient commentaries of 114–5 ancient quotations 201–6 (Aristophanes), 154 (Tzetzes) choliambic metre 32, 124, 175, 204–6 as comedy character 292–3 confused with Ananius 40–1, 202–3 editions 13, 29, 41, 114–5, 142 fr. 128W 32, 46, 56, 115, 340 [Ananius] fr. 1W 201–6 in the iambic canon 27–30, 293, 342–4 and the Margites 99 and other poets 32–3, 292–3, 318, 343–4 (Archilochus), 52, 115 (Hellenistic poets), 37 (Sappho) and the ‘other’ Iambe 121, 124, 175 parodia 46 as second prototype 343–4 Homeric Hymn to Demeter 167–73, 178–81, 277, 327 see also iambos and ritual homeristai 268, 284 Horace 65, 127–9, 199 Iambe 120–2, 167–82, 327 the ‘other’ Iambe 121, 124, 175
386
General Index
iambeion 66, 100–2, 109–10, 146, 193, 203–4, 210–13, 223–4 iambic metres 6 iambic poets canon 27–34, 53, 57, 135, 293, 344, 352 corpus of 15, 25–57, 136 editions 29–31, 41, 114–5, 142–3, 203 ‘extended iambos’ 19–21, 25–6 in Hellenistic epigrams 32 iconography of 233–4 minor iambic poets 54–6 ‘narrow iambos’ 18, 25–6, 147, 351 non-predominantly iambic poets 54–6 ‘received iambos’ 26, 34–57, esp. 53–7, 163, 147, 352 see also individual authors iambic script 12–3, 47 iambike idea 79, 104–9 iambikos 11, 105, 139–40, 186–8, 250, 340 iambikoteros 296–8, 340, 343 iambis 234–40, 251 iambizein 45, 85, 100–2, 119–28, 133–5, 144, 223, 298–9, 332, 343, 350 iamboi, occasions of performance 151–2, 165–6, 240, 253–78 festivals 160, 165–6, 208–9, 253–66, 276–8, 349–50 framed by ritual 255–6, 262, 277, 327 komoi 165, 253 migration 277–8 multiple scenarios 277–8, 349 public meals 160, 165–6, 253, 262, 276, 349 re-performance 17, 113, 152–3, 256, 264–6, 277–8, 312, 349, 352 ritualized commensality and conviviality 253–4, 261–3, 276–8, 349 in theatres 17, 110, 165, 253, 261–6, 276–8, 348 at symposia, see symposion see also mousikoi agones iamboi, transmission of 33, 87, 111, 116, 253, 266, 276, 349 editions 29–31, 41, 114–5, 142–3, 203 iambophagos 281, 328–333
iambopoiein 45–6, 340 iambos (YÆ ) not for anapaests 215–6, 218–9, 223, dactyls 216 or elegiacs 337–41 a generic term 67–8, 188–210, 225–5 new lexicographical entry 348 a nomos 248, 348–9 a performance 66, 110, 165, 208–10, 348 a poem 63–5, 201–6, 222, 348 and psogos 87–97, 109, 135, 145–6, 287, 293, 333–44, 350–1 a rhythm 61–3, 166, 183–8, 192, 201, 222–5, 348–9 a section of the Pythian Nomos 248–51, 348 for trochaic tetrameters 64–6, 109, 188, 222, 348 iambos and music 187–8, 224, 229–52 see also Pythian Nomos, iambos, modes of performance iambos and other genres comedy 66–8, 73, 81–2, 87–8, 106–8, 111, 247, 261–3, 320–8 parodia 45–7, 54–7, 73, 350 phallic songs 83–4, 87, 111, 275 silloi 42–3, 55, 281, 350 skolia (abusive) 247, 282–3, 350 see also parapsogos, psogos iambos and ritual 17–8, 118–9, 124, 167–82, 253–6, 261–2, 277, 295–8, 325–7, 349 a performance framed by ritual 255–6, 262, 277, 327 see also Iambe, iambos, origins of, phallic songs, tothasmos, iambos as a literary genre 67–8, 188–210, 222–5 alternative categorizations 350–1 function 134–6 (praise and blame), 166, 182, 349 hostile attitude to 66, 325–8, 344–5, 350–1 identiWed by dominant feature 225, 345, 351–2 (rhythm), 104, 146, 283, 317–46 (invective) identiWed by prototype 293, 343–4, 349–50 see also iamboi, occasions of performance
General Index iambos in ancient scholarship 28, 31, 67–8, 73, 108–47 Aristotelian Paradigm 145–6 Educational Paradigm 146 Hellenistic 20, 33–4, 52, 116, 136–43 Stoic and Epicurean Paradigm 146–7 See also Aristotle, Crates of mallos, Diomedes, Philodemus, Proclus and other individual scholars iambos in Rome 126–30 iambos, etymologies of 116–25 ancient 119–25, 134 eponyms 120–5 modern 117–9 see also Iambe iambos, modes of performance 229–32, 251–2 musical accompaniment 232, 239–40, 252 recitative, see parakataloge singing 238–40, 251–2, 264 iambos, origins of 21, 100–2, 109–10, 144–7, 152, 165, 175–6, 180–2, 325–7 iambos, performers of iambistai 255, 266–76, 348 iamboi 267–72, 275–6, 348 professional 254, 263–6, 274–8, 349 rhapsodes 256–9, 263–6, 294–5 Iambos, son of Mars 121–4, 144 iambyke 234, 238–40, 251 invective abuse of named individuals 11, 33, 37–40, 97, 105, 140, 281–3, 325, 254, 310, 344 Archilochus, prototype of 281–318 and iambos 104, 146, 283, 317–46 legal implications 309–10, 346 in other genres 109, 281–3, 324 a speech genre 345 terminology 26, 57, 100–1, 281, 319 traditional topics 308 in verse 281–3, 324 see also diabole, iambike idea, kakegoria, kakologia, loidoria, praise and blame, psogos, slander ischiorrhogic metre 40, 205, 220 ithyphalloi 269–76
387
kakegoria (vituperation) 57, 285–7, 320–7 see also invective, kakologia, loidoria, psogos kakologia (vituperation) 26, 42, 133–6, 332 see also invective, kakegoria, loidoria, psogos klepsiambos 238–9, 251 komoidein (ridicule) 37, 247, 324, 344 see also invective, abuse of named individuals, skoptein komos 87, 102–3, 165, 253, 283 Lasus of Hermione 187–8 loidoria (abuse) 26, 42, 57, 119, 133, 251, 281, 320, 323, 330–2 see also invective, kakegoria, kakologia, psogos Lucilius 127–9 Lysanias of Cyrene 31, 114, 264–6 Margites and iambos 18, 21, 25, 44, 54–6, 77–8, 82, 98–104, 110–11 ‘middling’ poets 254, 349 Mnesiepes’ inscription 181, 233–4, 294–8, 317, 340, 343 Moschina 34, 38, 53–6, 327 mousikoi agones 12, 70, 248–9, 256–60, 277 in Plato’s Laws 91–2, 209–10, 259–60 musical contests, see mousikoi agones obscenity, see aischrologia Old Oligarch (pseudo Xenophon) 310–11 Panarces 25, 51–2 parakataloge 231–2, 239 parapsogoi 50, 333–41 pariambis 234–7, 240, 251 parodia 45–7, 54–7, 73, 350 phallic songs 83–4, 87, 111, 270, 275 phallophoroi 255, 269–76 Pherecrates 51 Philicus 173 Hymn to Demeter 174 Phillis of Delos 238–40, 251 Philodemus 36, 136–45
388
General Index
phlyakes 205, 255, 271–4 Phoenix of Colophon 20 n. 70, 33–4, 53, 115–6 Photius 130–5, 144, 281 praise and blame 11, 65, 72, 80, 88–97, 135–9, 144, 147, 284–9, 335–7, 344–5, 351 Proclus 112, 130–7, 144–7, 281 protos heuretes 43, 46, 129, 175 prototypes 8–10, 13, 24–6, 129, 145 see also Archilochus, reception of psogos (abuse, vituperation) in Aristotle 65, 81, 87–98, 325 and iambos 87–97, 109, 135, 145–6, 287, 293, 333–44, 350–1 as macro-genre 95–6, 109, 283–4, 325 and the Margites 98–104, 111 meanings of 93–6, 283 in Plato’s Laws 90–5 a rhetorical term 63–5, 93–6 see also invective, praise and blame, parapsogos Pythian Nomos 187–8, 224, 248–51 Rhinthon of Taras 205–6 Sakadas of Argos 187–8, 249–51 salient feature, see dominant feature sambyke 239 n. 41 Sappho and iambos 35–8, 54–5, 343 invective 247, 282 script 12–3 see also iambic script Scythinus of Teos 49, 53–6
Semonides of Amorgos 27, 32–3 editions 29 with n. 13, 31, 115 fr. 7W 44, 277, 286 in the iambic canon 27–30, 40, 135, 344, 352 Semus of Delos 267–76 Simonides of Carystos or Eretria 50–1 Simonides of Ceos 51 skoptein (mock) 26, 37, 100–1, 170, 182, 324 see also komoidein slander, legislation against 241, 260, 309, 321–4, 328, see also invective Solon and iambos 38–9, 53–6 Susarion 18, 43–4, 53–6, 88 symposion and abuse 102–3, 283, 315 context of Critias 44 DK 203–5, 315–16 and iamboi 17, 38, 95, 102, 110, 160, 165–6, 253–6, 263, 276–8, 349 tabloid 352 Timocreon of Rhodes 47–8, 54–5, 247, 282 tothasmos (ritual scurrility) 173, 261–2, 325–7 Tzetzes 152–6 vituperation, see invective Xenophanes of Colophon 42, 54–5, 99 Xenophanes of Lesbos and iambos 43, 55
