Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire

138 Pages·2001·31.455 MB·English

by  Alberto Cavarzere

Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches
Iambic Ideas
Series Editor: Gregory Nagy, Harvard University
Assistant Editor: Timothy Power, Harvard University
On the front cover: A calendar frieze representing the Athenian months, reused
Essays on a Poetic Tradition
in the Byzantine Church of the Little Metropolis in Athens. The cross is
superimposed, obliterating Taurus of the Zodiac. The choice of this frieze for
from Archaic Greece to the Late
books in Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches reflects this series'
emphasis on the blending of the diverse heritages-Near Eastern, Classical, and
Roman Empire
Christian-in the Greek tradition. Drawing by Laurie Kain Hart, based on a
photograph. Recent titles in the series are:
Nothing Is As It Seems: The Tragedy of the Implicit in Euripides' Hippolytus
by Hanna M. Roisman
Lyric Quotation in Plato EDITED BY
by Marian Demos
ALBERTO CAV ARZERE, ANTONIO ALONI,
Exile and the Poetics of Loss in Greek Tradition
by Nancy Sultan AND ALESSANDRO BARCHIESI
The Classical Moment: Views from Seven Literatures
edited by Gail Holst-W arhaft and David R. McCann
Nine Essays on Homer
edited by Miriam Carlisle and Olga Levaniouk
Allegory and-the Tragic Chorus in Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus
by Roger Travis
Dionysism and Comedy
by Xavier Riu
Contextualizing Classics: Ideology, Performance, Dialogue
edited by Thomas M. Falkner, Nancy Felson, and David Konstan
The Pity of Achilles: Oral Style and the Unity of the Iliad
by JinyoKim
Between Magic and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient
Mediterranean Religion and Society
edited by Sulochana R. Asirvatham, Corinne Ondine Pache, and
Jolin Watrous
Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late
Roman Empire
edited by Alberto Cavarzere, Antonio Aloni, and Alessandro Barchiesi ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC .
. Lanham • Boulder • New York• Oxford
for Enzo Degani
, ,
ROWMAN&I:ITILEFIELD.PUBLISHEIlNlSC, .
Published in fhe· UniteclS tates of America
byRowman ~Littiefield Publishers, Inc~ ·
47?0 ~ost<>nW ay, Lanham, Maryhµ1d2 0706
www.rowmanlittlefield.com
.- . . . .
12 I-lid'sC ops~ Road'C.,u mnorH ill~O xford OX2 9JJ,E ngland
Copyright ©:2001 by Rowman&Littlefield Publishers,Inc.
•. ·- ::· .• : ,_. ,·' . ,. ,. - .. •_:-•__ ·. '··.,- .
. . Ali tight~ reserved.N o parto ithi~}.lublic~tiomn ay be reproduced,s t~red in ar etrieval
· system, or transmittedi n any fomio r by any means, electronic,m echanical,
photoc::opyingJ,e cqrdirig, or otherwise, without the prior permissi9nofthe publisher.
' , .. -, , ..:.. . : ' -.. - .. .. ' . . ,, .
·BritishL ibrary Cataloguing_.inP ublicati~nlnfoimationAvailable
LibraryofC()ngress Cataloging~in~PublicationD ata
, .. ·:.: .. _., ...... -_:, :·.,.>·-., .--
Iahlbic ideas : essays on a poetic tradition from Archaic Greebet o the late Roma11E mpire
/ edited by :AlbertoC· avarzere,A ntonio Aloni, and Alessandro Barc:hiesi. .
p. cm~- (Greek studies: interdisciplinary-approaches)
It1cludesb ibliographical refetenc~ and.i 11dex;
ISB:l'l0 :"7425~0816-l(~kpap~r)---ISBN 0"."7425~0817-{Xpb k. . : alk. paper) .
Iambic
. .• . L. poetry,·ciassfo~History and .criticism.. 2. Gr~ek language-Metrics
and.rhytlnnics.} . Latin language-Metrics and rhythmfos.. L Cavarzere,A lberto.
II. Al<;iaj,Antonio.I II. Barchiesi,Alessandro~IV. Series.
. ' . .
.•·PA302..2 1 35135,2001
88}'.0109-<ic:2i·
2001041693
Pritited iri the.United States of America.
,.E if'
1'he_p ap~rused.in.t}lisp. ublication meets,tlte mirtirimmre,q µirements of American
National s.tandard for Inform~tion,Sciences~Petmanence of Paper for Pri,ntedL ibrary
Materials, AN~IINISO23 9.48-1992.
Contents
Foreword ix
Preface xi .
Early Greek Iambic Poetry: The Importanceo f Narrative
Ewen.Bowie ·
2 · Whatls That Man Doing in Sappho, fr. 31 V.? 29
· A,:ztonioA /on( · · · ·
3 IambicMotifs•mAlcaeus' Lyric~ 41
Angela M.:. 11.ndrisano
4 Iambic Patterns in AristophanicC omedy 65
Giuseppe Zanetto
5 CallimachusI amb 4: From·Performanc_etoW riting
Lowell Edmunds
6 . Iambic Presences in Ennius' Saturae 99
Alessandro Russo .
7 Catullian Iambics, Catullian Iambi 117
Stephen J_.H eyworth
8 Horaqe a:Q.~IaIIlbps:ThP~o et as Literary Historian 141
A! essandro Barc_hiesi .
9 Some GenericProblerris in Horace'_Esp odes: Or, On (Not) Being
Archilochus · 165
Stephen J. Harrison
10 EjJode.14:: Horace'sC armen Incomiftum? 187
Lindsay C Watson·.
viii Contents
11 Ego Polivi Verfibus Senariis: Phaedrus and Iambic Poetry 205 Greek Studies:l rlterdisciplinaryAppr9aches
Alberto• Cavar~ere
12 Late Antique· Ia:rribjcsand lambike Idea 219
<Jian/rancoA~osii . .
· Index Locorum . 257
Foreword
About the Contributors 261
Gregory Nagy, .General Editor
Building on· the foundations of scholarship within· the disciplines of philology,
philosophy, history, and a.rchaeology, this series·s pansth e continuum of Greek
traditions extending from the second millemiium B.C.E. to the present, not just
aim.
the Archaic. and. Classical .periods ..•T he is to enhance.· perspectiyes by
as
applying. various .disciplines to problems that have• in the past_be~n treated the
exclusive concern of asingle given discipline. Besides the crossing~over of the
·older disciplines, as in the case of historical·. ancl1iterary studies; the series
encourages the application of such newer ones as linguistics, sociology,
anthtopology, and coII1paratjve··'literature~I t also · enc,ou,rages e11coµnters with
current trends in methodology, especially in the realm ofliterary theory.
·1aml:Jifcd eas, edited byAlb~rto Cavarzere, Antonio Afoni, and.Aless.!1Ildro
l3archiesi, explores th~ concept of the "iambicn as agenre. Eventhe ..t itle of the
bqok alludes, playfully (fambically?), to the ·idea of gem-e. . In the ancient Greek
la11guage, asspoken by Plato,ideameant both "form':' (as in Plato's "1'heory of
Forms") and ''genre'' (G~Nagy, "Genre andO ccas.iori/'Metis a9/ 10[1994/SJ:lF-
25, esp. p~ 21 n. 54). The equation Qf ''form'~ and "genre'' is source of ~nxi~~
to literary critics, since it implies that ~enre· is therefore something absolute!
This bookis a seit so fdetailedstudies tllat confront sucp: anxieties head-on: Th~
. idea. of iambic examined .a cross .t. illle,. through .a wic:lev ari~ty of cultural
s~ttings~W hat emerges most clearly fromthese studiesis that the '~iambic idea''
i.s impossible to de tine .i n absqlute terms:·.r ather, th~ form (the. Iow~rcase is:
inten~cmal) of iaµibic keeps on varying in response.to avast variety of~historical
iu
.c ontingencies: 'J'he variatfon .i s ·e vident such. critical· terms jis _t·h. e ''iambic
tendency"< in Sappho, the. ~•reusing of. iam'bi'' for Roman .e podes, and. even the
··.instances 9f''iambic absence'' in comedy and other suchrelatedforms. In.the end,
what is:most.characteristicaboutthe."iambic"·is itsown.inherent·vclriability,.as
captured in the plural of the title, "iambic ideas~" Jhe vitality of this. sllape
shifting form generates the memorable image ofCallim.achus fr~ 203.64-66:
iambic· fire. · · ·
ix
Preface
Per Alpium. iuga
This volume1 •is ba.sed on papers-presented at a conference pn_Gree.kand Latin
· iambic. poetry hosted by the University of 'trento2 in the mild Novemhe:rof
1998; th,e confer~nce itself wasJhefinal result ofaresearch program on the same
subject codirected by Antonio Aloniand Alberto. C~avarzere~T he initial idea in
was
!his sequence of Russian dolls the simple observation that there was no
· comprehensive and updated account of iambic poetry from its origins •t o late
antiquity, and that the lack of interaction and dialogut, among th~ various sub'"
dis.ciplines·a_n d.discourses. that articulate present-day classfo~l studies w:as .a
probl~m form any scholars interested 'irtlhe relevant texts (see-infra for our
we
. itaHcs here)~ ..I n. this short ptf}face ·touch on guch shortcomings as the
distinction between the study of Greek and Romanli t~rature and the seP,ar~tiono f
ou
t~xtual•scholarship from.approaches·.based culture,._histQry,.f llld_s ociety. We
hope that the cumulative ~ffect of the chapters in this -volume will suggest_ a
of on
number. of productive interactions.: In the best traditions scholarshiP,
ru.1·
iatllbos, a textual detail can be the fulcrum for. antliropological insight, a
an
pro1>ern ame canf unction as a portal to ambitious: re3:ssessmentof a whol~
. g~nr~and ipversely, Qfc ourse, manylocalized decisions. of interpretatiQn have
been predicated 011·wide.-rangingid. eas-o_f what defines performanpe, literature, .and
p9etics. This kind _of dialogue between id:eas and close readings continues .
tliroughout the. collection, but. it is also, ,to put ~t.m ore simply, ililpoftant that
the.volullle_-offers._a conununaJ.spac~ for discussions .oftexts wdtten-_in"t wo;:.'
a span
lcmguages_o ver time of ~Pl)f()X,imate-l1y, 400 years. Before the start ofthis.
project we hadafoelingthatfurtherprogress in the fieldcooulrd be occluded or held
back. by empirical ignor~mce, bec~use texts· that we, the anc_ients,:o r both
(;. We_thank"G. Nagy·,- the·r,taffo f Rowm&a" nLi Ulefield,·and _·a(n)U f English-;
speaking contribut<>rfso r. help ;irid.a dvice toward the. unusual task gf editing ua sei
mani" a bQok in a foreign ~ar1guage; ..· . .. ·__.· .. . ·. . ·•· . . __·. . .
2. We are, grateful to the Dep1trtment of Classical Studies there and to Viviana
TartarotH_for.her·brilliant support.'
xi
xii: ... Preface Preface xiii
::,.,._. . .
-·-·::. .,
.w ould,Jabel iambic occurred in so many different epochs and cultural contexts. list, Alberto Cavarzere, has conveniently exiled himself to a chapter on another
Iambic Ideas was published in the hope that Latinists will find it interesting to of his favorite poets, Phaedrus.3 .
. ineditate with Bowie on the difficulty of mapping early iambos as differentiated The selection of focuses and approaches in the Greek section of the book has
from· elegy or lyric, that specialists of Archilochus will enjoy glimpses into been influenced by an attempt not to replicate some of the major contributions in
Christian iambos, and scholars-of Callimachus can become interested in what the field, but is still representative of central issues, although for• some reason
Phaedrus or Horace do with the conventions of Greek iambos-by altering them most contributors have chosen to view the rise and continuity of Greek iambos,
and by reimagining them for future readers. as it.were, from the margins. The important chapter byEwen Bowie ~ets the
After saying the fatal words "relevant texts" in the first paragraph of this agenda for a series of studies that adopt the viewpoints of lyric-Aloni on Sap
preface, however, we have to pause and admit that we knew when we started this pho, Andrisano on Alcaeus~comedy-Zanetto-and Hellenistic Buchpoesie
research, and we still know, that this language about texts and relevance begs the Edmunds. Characteristic of these chapters is an interest in what texts that are not
question of genre. It is impossible to decide what texts are relevant to this project normally identified as iambic, either by us or by the players in the field, can .
'without a preliminary idea of. genre and it is impossible to shape up a · contribute to an understanding of the "core" authors and their poetics. This is
preliminary idea of genre without having selected certain texts in the hope that partly relevant to Edmunds' Callimachus and not only to·the Aeolic poets and to
they will tum out to be relevant. Like many normal. humanistic enterprises, this Aristophanes, because Callimachus has been so often identified as the proponent
one was doomed to be circular, and happy to be circular. of a modem, or perhaps postmodern, new-wave iambos. The more detailed
We decided to promote this well-known problem of generic analysis to a major chapter by Russo, in its rather different methodology, weff exemplifies how the
theme of our discussion, by naively foregrounding it in the title, Ia~bic Ideas, problem of generic identity is submerged within the tantalizing, Protean
. not Idea, and we have invited the contributors to be constantly aware that the indiscipline of early Roman· poetry: the link posited by Russo between
borders and perimeters of what counts as iambic in antiquity should be a dynamic Hellenistic imagery about iambic poetry and poetic self-awareness in Ennian
problem, not the result of a definitive mapping. The resulting chapters aim to satura is indicative of the much that we have lost in the relatively short time.:.gap
counterbalance the absence of one unitary methodology with the richness of the between Callimachus and Ennius, two fragmentary masters framing an age of
coverage and the multiplicity of links and interfaces that every contributor intense Italy-bound traffic of Greek cultural goods. When we approach Catullus
establishes with his or her fellow contributors, One of the specific aims of the and Horace, the important exploration ofthe·Archilocheanfragments offered by
collection is to point out that iambos should be defined in different ways not Bowie becomes relevant again, because in the poetic projects of Catullus and
only within the evolving literary system of antiquity (for that would still be too Horace the issue ofhow to redefine iambic poetry is intertwined with'atteinpts to .
tidya contextualisation), but also within society and cultural practices. In fact, come to terms-with Archilochus-precisely, one· might suggest after reading
one of the main appeals of this area of ancient poetry is that the genre, whatever Bowie and Aloni on Sappho, because late-archaic Greece offers a s_trikingv ariety ·
its contours and transformations, appears to be constantly aware that poetry has of models and·strategies to write iambic poetry, some of them contagious, some·
functions and effects within society at large, and that the receptio11o. f individual of them impossible to replicate.
authors is never a purely aesthetic issue. The main agenda of many contributors has been dictated by a vested interest in
Another main impulse for our project has been the idea that iambus in Rome not divorcing competent scholarship from openness to critical ideas. In the field
was lagging behind the exciting success of many new approaches to Hellenic
iambos. The separation between Hellenic and Roman studies is always a problem . .
in the history of academia, particularly when Latin literature is viewed like an 3. Our English-speaking contributors (a li~ited number of people for we had
financial limits: see :infra) have been invited on the basis of ongoing projects they
inert appendix to a thrilling history oflive performances and cultural poetics. We
were working on at the time of. the conference: Bowie .on the fragments of
hope that at least some of the contributions on the Roman side have been able to
Archilochus, Edmunds on the fable, Heyworth ori meter and Catullus, Hai:rison on ~
derive some energy from the exemplary vitality of Greek ideas of iambos after book on genre in Roman poetry, Watson on his eagerly awaited· commentary on the
the fresh start contributed by Dover, Gentili, Nagy, Pellizer, and others in the Epodes. Regarding the Italian team, our choice of speakers has· been impeccably
1960s and 1970s. One of the ancient authors who is most prominent in this arbitrary: we decided to invite only the Italian scholars who were part ofthe originary
thematic network funded. by the Committee of National Research, and to. channel the
volume, the epodic Horace, has already profited from a new wave of Hellenizing
available funding exclusively toward the project to makejnternationaJparticipation .
interest in: recent work by, for example, William °Fitzgerald, Ellen Oliensis,
to the -Trento seminar possible. So we intended the English-speaking group to be
David Mankin.and Alberto Cavarzere. Understandably, we have chosen not to. representative of current research iil the field; to the best of our knm,yledge, while the
replicate those names in the Horatian chapters, and the only comeback in this Italian group bas no such claim versus the scene of Italian classical studies, arid iri fact
does not include some leading experts of iambic poetry.
xiv Preface
ofGreekpoetry there has been spectacular progress in making sense ofiambos in
its social and performative context and important advance in exegetical and
textual studies. These chapters refuse to make a clear cut choice between those
0
two approaches, and accept the challenge of discussing scraps of evidence and
problematic fragments while trying to redefine the concept of the genre in its
evolution; Watson focuses on a Horatian epode that defies interpretation because
the deft allusive strategy of the Roman poet has been fatally reinforced by the
1
loss of crucial information regarding Anacreon and his verse. Aloni and
Andrisano meet the double challenge of working on fragmentary utterances by
Early Greek Iambic Poetry: The Importance of
Sappho and Alcaeus while making inferences on .the evolution of iambic
Narrative . . ·
discourse and its recognizability in an alien context. Bowie criticizes the
construction ofiambos as essentially blame and slander but also contributes to a
wider and richer assessment of its potential. Zanetto recuperates from the
Ewen Bowie
apparently unitary language of abuse of Old Comedy strands and inflexions that
could have been recognized as iambic moments by the audience. Both Zanetto
· and Edmunds usefully remind us that iambos as a literary genre-if this is a
· This chapter explores the relative importance of invective a:iid narrative in the
coi:rect definition-coexists and negotiates for a long time with a genre of
earliest surviving :fragments of Greek iambic poetry, and argues that narrative
discourse, ainos, the Aisopic tradition, and interested readers might want to save
may have been just as important ·as invective in defining the genre .. In
this insight for a later encounter with Cavarzere's Phaedrus.
approaching this question it is important to remember that these surviving
We· regret not having had more contributions on Callimachus, but the timing
fragments I are very unlikely. to represent the beginnings of Greek iambic poetry.
of the conference might have. been too early for an anticipated revival of
Whenever and wherever these beginnings may have been, they were almost
Callimachean/iambic studies, since two major contributions to the text of the
certainly some time, perhaps many generations, before our first :fragments, which ·
Iambs by Benjamin Acosta-Hughes and Ai:nd Kerkhecker are forthcoming in the
date from ar,oun~ 650 B.C. I am very sceptical about the possibility of
year 2000 as we write this preface. One could also deplore the absence of
constructing plausible hypotheses about the development of iambic poetry before
Hipponax and of Herodas, the focus of much exciting research recently (R.
the poems from which these :fragments come. In them we find no trace that their
Hunter, G. Mastromarco, C. Miralles, R. Rosen, to name but a few: updated
composers, Archilochus of Paras and Semonides ofAmorgos, are at an early
critical assessment in R. Hunter, "The presentation of Herodas'•Mimiambi."
stage in the development of the genre or in the handling of its meters-rather
Antichthon 27 (1993): 31-44). Another author whose work might have
they display .a n assured skill in both respects. I suppose that they had
illuminated ancient iambo.s from the margins is Martial, ,whose corpus
predecessors whose work was not preserved because it was only around 650 B.C.
reproduces the small-scale work of Catullus metrically, and in many of its
that writing came in_tou se for the transmission of literary· texts, and I see in
attitudes; but unlike his model he refuses, the label iambus, never using the word,
Archilochus the presence of some phrases that might be seen as iambic formulae
and instead produces a seminal text for the genre "epigram."
as a possible product of ape. arlier tradition.2
In th,e end it seems to us that our contributors have responded to the
provocation of Iambic Ideas with constructive approaches and that future
I. In ·citing the fragments I use the numeriticm and (with a few exceptions) the text
revisitations of the field might profit from individual contributions and address of West 1989. ·
some of the broader issues in this volume. In praising the authors who have now 2. For possible iambic fo,rmulae compare Zev; ,ta.~Q 'O).uµn:i.wv frr. 25.6,
become our friends we are aware that editors, of all people, are the least likely to 122.2, Zeus '01cuµ1ti.o:i[v.]o.fLr.[ 98.13; a dative version 0EWV'O ).uµn:i.wvV O(!)f r.
escape that most persistent of all iambic functions, blame. 94.13; ELA.EaStx wn frr. 23.19, 96.5; eycbv.aµEL~6µ11v frr: J96A.9 and pe;haps
23. 7; n:ai:s EQUC.'tun:Aouu :,; fr. 94.2, n:a1:s'A 011vai.1A1 LO£f r. 98. 7 For a possible
Alberto Cavarzere fonnula available for elegy and for dactylic lines of asynarteta, av~Qe xei;w, Arch. fr.
Antonio Aloni 196A.25, Tyrtaeus fr. 11.4.
Alessandro Barchiesi
Early Greekl itmbicP oetry:T he Importanceo f Narrative
·· • .·, .f
thl;/expl6ration has been prompted by an interest in two problems, one.more have opened the ''Cologne epode" (fr. 196 and 196A):6 that is, he is actually
. ge0:irat:fuid the, other,more particufar: The· n1ore general ptobleni is whether in performing poetry which his wordsdeny that he can Cmnpose.I f that were so, a
· Archikichus~' tinie there was a recognised geme iambos,. and if soi how if~as poem which commemoratt!dh is dead brother-in-lawa 11dw hich was composed in
we
difined,:The more pc1rticular,b ut .of course related,probh:m ,is the generic place .·. .t he metre call iambic trimeters. ~ould for A.rchilochus. be an example of
of:
oftlie·•Iong:trochaic teq'ameter fragme'nts Archilochus, much of them · iamkos. But the tern:111eedilobt e self reflexive: he could equally well be saying
contafoi_ngn arrativespfwat, that have beenpreservefi chiefly on papyrus a11d0 11 that his grief.prevented him.being interested in either.iamboi .orj qllifications and
M: be
. the twobig inscriptionsfromthe,Archilocheion onParos}: .. _·•·_ '·.·. ·. assume _thatt he poem thc1t was· cµn-e11tlyp erforming WOllld perceived_a s
The question of the existence imdnatu:re ofan earlfgenre iambo; hasbeen fallillg into 11eiiherc ategorydt would ofcoun,e behelpful iftlle disjunction o'iha'
Inuch discussed:41 shall try as fa.ar~ p ossible to avoid engagingt oo closely with· taµ/3<0Vo ut£ 't£QJtC.0AaE( l)V( neither ia,nbo(norjollifications) could offer JJ.S.
any fadividl!al scholar's view, or with ·the issue.s _either pf quasicdramatic clue. But that could be disjµnctfon either of similar or ofdissimilar elements,
of:
performai,lce or· the _r eality or fictionality _o f Iiamefi ·individuals .. Our. so it cannot tell ui; whether iamboi were like 'tEQJt(l)A.EC.OV(j olHficatio_ns) or
· 1lli.derstandingjs· h indered.b:ythe fact tha.to nly one fragment pf early poetry uses · unlike therri.
the tepn ia,nbos (i'.aµ/30~).,a nd that fragment of Ar9hilochus (21?W .,c ited by ~fore light is shedon·the ·term i<imbosby the use.ofthe namefambe in the
A;p:.
the .·.t welfth-century- Byzantine scholar Johannes Tzetzes). allows us to account of Demeter's mmrming for Persephone as giveifm the Homeric hymn to
interpret iqmbos in more than one way: . Demeter: a woman Iambe UStidje sting and mockery to make Demeter laugh and .
recover her tranquillity: ·
lo.µ~rov µe)..e
.% C·lµL ' ou,:' ou~e 'tEQ:l'tWA.imv L
.. JtQlVy ' oi;e oiJ xieunfµLv 'Iaµ~T}, i.e&ve' loura
·A 11dL have interest in neitherj a_mboi nor jollifi~atioils·: ._ .. :l'tOAA.\tl aQaax.<lmwuo-£' 'tQf'ljJ<XW:i ,:6iytav~ yvrrv
Archilochusf i';2 15 · µet6fjomy_eACiaim:e ,i.al u..qo,va xerv >Buµ6v.
_.·_rn··his•·citatiTonze tzes teUs us· that theiambic·trimeter _relatest oa_situ:ation IJntil, thaUs, with jests lambe oLgood counsel,
wllereArchilochusis mournitig_ th_e l~ss ~f his sister's husband at_$ea· ca calan1ity . interveningw ith· manyj ibes,.m_·o yed the holy lady
an l to smilea nd tcil augh. andt o acquirea tranquils pirit. ._ ·•. _ ._._· . _
. t_hata lso OCC!!Sioned elegi~c poem, 9:-1 and perhaps Sand 12).and says that · · · · · · · Hon.zerich ymn to Demeter, 202-4)4
i1a1n swer hµn
Archilochus co,mposedt he liiie to people who were. trying.t oforce
tOU\Vd5t Iet .is" attractiveJo suppose th~t the term iamboi is her~ sellfw-~e fJexive, Thig. story .c. 1,.i arly_r efa'' tes to .-the cnuoµµa-ra_.{,.• jibeg}l ater .c1tte#ed_~p--arto f
, and thatArchilochtIS is.deployi11gt he same trope as that with which seellls to·.
Eleusinian ritual, and shows that th~re was a conceptual link between iamboi ,and
O'xcoµµaw,·but. of course it does not demonstrate that the genreiamb9shad
rituaLorigins. It is compatible both·with the. hypothesis thal iambos. be$ail in a
_ _ 3. The tem~~os and altar for. the·.c ult' qf Archilochu~•( i il_ongsidoet.h er gdds)) VllS . ritual context and then became secular, as it clearly has become by the generation
constructedb y fylnesiepesc a.,350-Jqo B,C.a, s attestedb y a third-;centuryi1 1scription
(SEG J5 .517), cf._ G erber 1999,Archilochus_t e stimonium}; This inscriptiono ffers a ofArchilochus an/iSemqiµdes, aild with the hYI>othesitsh atia,nboi were a form
of secular poetry that regularly oroften involveaqxcoµµa~a. and that it was fo,; ·
biography Using local. •tradition and quoting fr;tg.nents.. A nother.•-i.n scription. was•·.
this reas9n thatthe creator of the story ()f the woman who consoled Demeter
erect~_b y ,Sostheiiesi n.t he fi~st_~ enturyH ,; probal,lya iso in.t he Archilocheicin1, G _·
< .' .. . . .•·.· .'_ ' ... .··. •. ._... . . ... ··... •_
:12.5A'1}.-.+suppL p. 21.:2:c· [ Jacob-y FGrlf 502, Peek._I?85,·_.GerberI999, ·. gkve her the name Iambe. ..·..
.· An:hilo~hllSte s(imonium4. Oni t is ins~ril,edI ! .life based on ana ccountb y Demeas, . \ Whichey~r ofthesehyp~theses we.s upport, itis y~luable to have evide11ceo f a
in
quotingm 1;1cIhT li]jtaryl) ~tiye tetr!llneters. . .· . .·. ·.·.•.·.· ' ·. > .·. . link between iainbol and oxcoµµa,:a as early as the hymn to Demeter (some
.·. .• 4 . h11p9rtanTt llcent Co11tributiona_res .t hose Qf .West.1 974,· .2 2~J9; Nagy ·I 979, a time in the sixtlice11tury B.C.).7 Thatlink is also clearin the laterfourth
~_lighU_yr evist!d:versiono·f Nagy·_.J':l7_6·;D t!ganil984;•C_a rey .l 986;_•Rosenl•9•8. 8; ..
Bartol.J 99J, 30-4I; 61..,.74.F• ot.furthi:/discussions see the bibliographyf or 1921-
1989 ~y Gerbt!r1 991. __._· __ _·__ ._.-.·__. _· .·_ ._•-_. . · -.• -. > ·. __· __ • ; ._ ___ -_-_·_ ._ . . · l96n.~ ·iFnrg.-,m1 9y6f <r ileAn.dA,_ oaµv '6 e rApo~wOeLrsm( lE1A:aI)p·._ 0pf•l0 eSa1 r:t ao{J,QMe etµh. vec ~neacLoJntd6a Bilodg th i(rbdu /ti•n•e•s_ olimfdlH1ofioerss itn·. g.
5, l:qifj~a ~e~<pfj~ Y~Q otituyoy PLYEV'ti(:1fl. 8 aAUCTO:1I']t 8QL3ta0m~(M tlQE'tO,
YQU~etvµ n ,BeAwv_ 0 /\0.J~,A EYOJ~VQ C)~i; oii"~ ~Latov..at; OUYJQ<iµµacrtv stropheo f the pooemf whosem iddlea Qde nd are fr. I 9~A.T hey wouldf ollow coherently
eyx.u1ti:~w(f r. 2!5 = JoTzetz. atfeg, Hinn. Q 125 ff.). .an openingl ine the fo~rr"I .ca.rinotcomposepoetry;".
1.--Cf, Richardson1 974.
of
4 Ewen Bowie Early•Gteeklambic Poetry:-The Importance Narrative
a
. . w, as
century. -Aristotle in. the Poetics .i dentifies type of blame poetry .that the sense ofoxili:rtLELVan d axroµµm:a, .although these tenns have the further
composed byBU't8AE<1't8QO(pLe ople of lesser quality)}han th9se iN"ho,b eing implication that tlte. abuse is humorm1sa nd amuses those who hear it. It. may· be
ac:µv6i=EQ.?(Lm ore di~ified), composed hymns and .encomia •. The.se blame that the verb i.aµ()U;etvh a.d been used earlier, in the remark attributed to the
poems he terms 'tj)oyoi (vjtuperatipns), · and sees the Margi(<# as their first historical <Jorgias on reading Plato's dialogue named ,Gorgias after him: ch!;
extant example. He also notes ~ Hnkwith the ia111bictritneter which, he says, xaXoo~o· LOEII la:trov iaµ.~tteL(VH ow well Plato knows how .to defame).~ But
in and
acquirecl .its name, taµpf;LOVbe, ca~se it \Vas thi_sm etre that people uttered the chronology is tight, to say the least, I take the rem.ark to be. ben trQvato
ia.µpoL~ gainst oeafch other, ch:dv tq>µ, etQq>tO :t)tq> taµ~atto v UAA1JAO8 V.. s~ rather thanvero. . . ·. ·. . . .. ·. .._ .··. .·. ·. . _.. · . . . .·
This passage the Poetics is important in establishing sense of the verb It seems clear, then, that Arist?de saw a close .link between iamboi an.d
taµPlteLVw hich involves vituperation or abuse, something that is also part of . humorous a~u:se. nut the Poetics passage also takes us into the problem of the
relation. between the metrical term taµ~etov (iambic trimeter). and. the genre
iamboi. That metrical term is. in existence py the time of the late-fifth-century
8. b.t803tU00t] M. xqi'a 1:(lo txstcdi0ri ~. 3tOLt]m~. OLµ .evY llQo eµv6,:sQOL,: a.~ Athenian aristocrat Critias:
6e.
xaXa.~s µiµouv,:o 3tQC(~ELx~q l. '(;Cl.,£:r ov' tOLOtJ'to>oVt; S'U'teAEO'tEQ., O:aL.~ . , :rov
·.< pCl'UkO>:3Yt;Q. O>'tO,'pV6 you~. 3t0L0'Dyte~f,f i03teQ·,E teQOL~ µvoub ..%. ClL·· sy,tcoµta. 1tai vi:ivK )..eMouu i.ov' A01']vatovo mpavchom
._'·t.O OVµ ev oovJt QQ ·oµflQOUo -oBe~vxooµ~s.v SLJtE'LtOVLO. U'tOV. 3t0LT]µa,s b,og, OE 'Ali.%t~ta'5!]Vv fotOLV uµy~aasi :Q63tOLS
. ,d,mval t- eJta'0tO.M LOaUu,£:a'•<, ..~. l 3 t•(.O ). ML£ ·, ·co.µa~,Q:a,9.: 1toJva Q< lµQo~i:id:oµve v,eoa~t f'CoiO;tta·v µ: ~·OsLtoOv EV~% leEe LlVJ,OE6'l tJQM OQOV.L QO.' Y> tha'rt J~ . O'U. VY'UUVQ. imY· o e~v.~ t.av µ't~Oe'Ut'OVOJ%µt8' et<cJpe'dtaQt. µo.u6txc &1f,:µvAe .e-ryg~rLoOsJ. L
taµ(M:~y xaABL'tat .v uv, ··O. 'tL.. ,:cp.µ B'tQq >.. ' tOU't(p .t aµ~L~O•V·.(• l /1.At}AC•.r xuagt;
And now I shall garland the.A ath 1:mia·sno n. of Cleinias.
'EtCyLe(vJ 3otvOr'U,o,6: da')tay µ3taCA!l.i.tQcr.Lm©3 qVtOt LpT.e)'vt~ TSt}-/QOOµTJ]LQ%0O0S~)L vVo · e(iµ.; t6oavµ o~gO. YJ'<V3L t0oQL- fol'tcx:hO 0L:0Lt 0;:." O30te .QAM A l,l%.m att fAolrc itbhieardee sw, ash ynmo nwinagy hofii nfi titnin g nhoisv nela mfaesh inioton :
µLµfJ01::tg aQaµattx.ag faotflcrcv),. ·o ~i:mg xat tfjg; x.wµcp&lago;x. tlµa ·n :Qrotog; an elegiac couplet,
,:o
'il3tBOgt1;evo,i l ,p6yov ctA,11.(l yeAOLOVO Qaµa,:oxcOLfl(JU6£ . )'O.Q. MUQ')'L'tT]S ' and instead it will be set not unmetrically in an
~(lt~
&va).o . yov £)::EL0,0 03tEQ 'U.La.g; .·oauaoaLa 3tQOS'tl lf; 'L'Qaycpoi.aOg';t,) 'tO>, eat iambic trim~ter.
ov,:og 3tQbg· _,:a.g% OJµq>6lag3~ta Qacpavs£oriSs ei ;fjg :q2ay<p:c3£%asU. L, eruµcpclHag; Critias 4
ol .e. qt ..E %atEQaVi: itv3 tc;>tt]O..O' LQ'.\µ' ©vteg%;.(l_'t( l 1:f)Vo txs(av ..q .n'.JcrOLLv·µ. av. .& vd,
,:©v taµf3ruv._xruµcpc3on:o!ywetv. ovi-q,. ot M &vi:ti;rov·.·tn:©-y1:Qaycp~o6uSaoxa- This pQem of{ympotic prai~e must .have been composed at the very l~test .
11.oL.. ... . . . .. . ' . . ..• niost
befor~ the time of Afoibiades' murder in 404/3 B.C., and probably during
·spilt
[~oetry tip, ·_accorctingto peopl~'s ··p ersonal characters. For ·the·m bre dignified his ~arlier years,~around 430 B.C.T he t~nn taµp~tov (iambi() trimeter) was
hnitated npble actions,· and the actions of people of that s9rt, whereas those of kisser presumably coinedat the same time as the·tertnJXgyetov,w hich appearsin.the
quaJityhnitatedthe actions of low people~_fi rst composing, vituperations,j~stas the same quatrain, and alsn{perhaps aro~nd 420 B.C.}in Pherecrates~ Chiron.10 As
other, gr?up co1nposed hymns and eriq()mia. For no poet before flpmet can we point to
Aristotle implies,·· th~ ..t erm must have been applied ..t o the .i ambic •t ri~eter
'a l)Oem of this sort. but if is plausible :thatt here were many poets, whereas beginning
becaus.e it was espefially qharacteristic of iamboi. But neither does this· entail
with Homerwe can, such as that poet'sMargitesand poems of that sort.In-this stage the
1a~nectq.rr~dwinhgi ctho t~ies. wp. rhinyc iipt lies ionf fparocpfnr ioewty ·· ctahlelered "ailasQtn 1d>evic·et rloimpeedte rt;h' eb· eiacmaubseic ittr wina1se·. tienr~ ths ias · tthhea ,to ththee trr iemveidteern wc_ased ~moonnsltyra tme e.t.tr hea ti·n twheh ipcrhe sieanmceb·o io wf·e.a rbeu>s ceo mwpaos~.·e ad; n encoers sd(olreys
to a
metre· that. they.· used - utter iambi against each other. Anda Qsf the ancients some condition for pm~n1b eing termed iambos:. .. .... . . .....-..
beqaJlle _poaets o f heroic poems and some of iambi .. And just Homer was also pte As: .to .the_first:pofot, indeed, it_i s clear.·.that the.·Alexapdrians .grouped
and
eminentas poet in s~rious C()ffipositions( forh e was the only one not simply .to choliambics, trochaic tetrameters, epodic poems, including. asynartet,a, in
..c ompo~e welt· but also-toco111pose dramatic imitations) so._·too_ he_w.as.thef irst.~o give the books of early.poets .~hich they en@ed illmboi. It is on the second point
:vai gtulhpnep~saet ioofn .Ft hoer fjounsnt aosf Cth:eoI lmiad ~bayrmn, aOd~id nygs seay d rsatamn·da?j nf\ rVeihaattiw onas t ol autrgahgaebdl~iea s,n.s odn od to ~~sf itnh amt umcuhc ho fo tfh eth peo reetrsyt• o cfo tnh1ips opsaepµe irn iwamilbl ifqo Qturis.m . Iyt.t iesr sc laenadr finro tmhe .soeu ro ftrhaegrm meenttrse st hbayt ·
Ma,rgite.s-
th~ to comedies .. IM when. tragedy and comedy caine intoheing the poets
were.drawn to. each of the.two types 9fpoetraycc ording to their ownpersonality,. and;
some,: inste~d of cmnposing iarnbi, became coinfo poets,. while others~ instead of
coritposing epic~ b~came tragic playwrights]. Aristot Poet. -l448b24-l449a5. 9 ••A then. I LS05d. .· . . .. . . .. .. . . • .· .·.· .
10. Pherecr. I 53 Ko.ck= 162 K;-A. Cf. Bowie ·1986,2 5; Bartol 1993, 18-21.
6 Ewen Bowie Early Greek 'Iambic Poetry: The Importance of Narrative 7
Archilochus,'Senionides, Solon, Hipponax, Ananius, and. He~ippus there is we should conclude, !think, that its prominence.fa iambic, trochaic, and epodic
rm
little or trace of ..p6yo~( vituperation)~. One of the ~ollowing ):wo hypotheses metres might wellbeageneric market. I1_1seth e term."narratiye" with.reluctance,
might explain these·phenomen,a. , · since its use ofthe primary mode of some other genres (above all epic and prose
Either, · _. . . fiction) has -en~umbered it with much baggage. In what follows it is intended to
1. ·•W e may postulate that. within the po~try composed. in these metres tllere refer to the telling of so:meth~g that has happened, however brief that happening
was a subcatt}gory.which did regularly involve. ,p6yo~ (v ituperation); that this and however simple the telling. C•
subcategory wa~ termed iambos; and thatit was sufficiently prominent in the ,
poetry· still circulating in the i later fifth. century·. to attract the m_etrical coinage
Semonides of Amorgos
ict.µpetoVa;n d that trimeters were also.used for other•forms ofpoetic•utterance
that cont~mporaries would not have seen as ·iamboi.O. r,
The least promising corpus• is that of Semonides · of Amorgos. The surviving
2~W e may postulate :that -iamboi constituted a more· 1oosely linked network of
material is dominated by the_l ong, vilificatory catalogu,e of types of women {fr.
poetjc types, into which_a Hth e above-mentioned fragments fell: that witlnn that 7), a type of reflective analysis that might weU be fo~d in elegy were it not for
network the irunbic trinleter was the most commonly used metre; and that within
for its prominent element of generalised tp6yoL.T he same moralising stanc:e, but -
that network poems involving '1J,6yow; ere also sufficiently prominent the
without the wit, is taken in the 24Iines (fr. 1) addressed ci>J tat (my child!).
term iaµf3(~e1,fvod evefop the meaning "abuse." _ · . . _
But there are fainttraces ofnarrative in.other fragments. These are:
· ·S ome scholars· havefa voured the first solution. 11 It seems to me that there is
>
more to be .said in favouro f the··second, and•one'.important consideration is.the <x.- tO f/ ~µLV £Q1tBtQV 1tUQE1UtUt0
to
prommerice ofnarrative ..i n fragments both.associated and-riot·.associated wi.th twi~v ,uixto,;ov ?X't'T)tm ~{qv
abuse.· It would not indeed ·.be possible to' claim that narrative was_p resent in
of .• ~ the creepy crawly flew past us
more than 50percent of the fragment~ which contain evidence of the stance of
that animals has been given the 1nost wretched life
the p9em fron1 which they· c~llle (i.e., whether it \:Vas~ xhortatory, critical, . Se1nonidesf r. 13
abusive; reflective, etc~); and· of course there .is .a huge number of fragments
where we: have 110d ecisive indication at all of the pOelll'S stance. Bl,Jti fwe bear xaA~LqJOµTµ)uVQ OI.OL xat 8ucoµaotv . . _
in mind. that·. narrative_ plays a. very smalL role in short me Hepo ems, -whether . xat ~axxaQt· xa.t y&Q i:i.; eµ1toQOStt aQfjV
Ion,ian or Aeolic, 12 andan even smaller role in short, sympotic elegiac poemsP
tbegan·to anoi11hnyself with myrrh. and. perfumes
and hazelworf _;.scen,t,·f or there was a businessman there.
,,. . ··, -... _· . . '· Semonides fr. 16
l LE.g., West 1974, 22-39. For a good discussion cf. Bartol J993, 30-41_.
. I 2: There is not space to review the evidence :here. I introduce the distinction xat i;fjs oma0av t OQao0t'.iQT<J'~x > ~11;oaµ11v
.. ''Ionian" a.nd ~'Aeolic," however, because the narrative element in Alcaeus seems to be
greater than in Ibycus and ·Anacreon. and on-my hypothesis that might be explained and I Jhrust my way i11tot he back entrance
by the fact thatin an 'Ionian context a poet who had in mind the comp()si~i()no f some S.emonidesf r. 17
sort of narrative ntight us_ei ambic trimeters or tro~haic tetrameters .w hereas. in ap w. .
Aeolic cont~,ct'thesemetres (and the genre.iambos··with which I see.them -as closely 'fhe context of fr .. 13 is .·irrecoverable: .a . fable llas ·b een Suggested.,· but the .
associated) were simply not avail~ble~ -_. _. .. _ . . .. . . -. spieaker could as well be a·human narrator as an animaL talking ina fable. In
.. IJ·. I -.u se the tenn "short •. sympotic elegy" to .refer· to the sort ofp oern. best either caseth e tellmg of a story is implied. Both fr. 16a nd fr. 1T looklike- first~
16
represented i~ o~r suryiving material as oppo~ed to the longer elegies intended, in my person erotic narrative~. But the gpeaker offr: might rnore pmbably be feII1ale
as
vie~,:forfonn~l and festive_perfortriance (cf. iBnow ie 1986, 27:'.34). ofwhich:only than male (although so oftenin ancient quotation, Clement, citing the lines,
lfntU of
slighttraces. remained the •publication 1992 the Sinionides elegy on . assumes the speaker to be the poet himself).149n the other hand the speaker of
Piataea. The few. narrative se~tions of _short► syrnpotic elegy. include Mimnennus fr. 9
on th.e agival of Pylian colonjsts ,at Colophon (signific~ntly, perhaps, a theme
M imnennus is· likely also to ha~e treated in hts long poem S111yrneis,i f indeed the
_con-ect}a nd Theogn. 265-66; a verybrief erotic narrative appar~ntly subjoined to the
_fragment's·attributio,n by Strabo 14.634~·to the Nan1w and not tothe Smyrneis is poet's.comment on a:g irl's fee)ings f1 or him.
14.C lem: Paed. 2;8.64.3-4. ·