So that’s a quite different time and place.
αυτον is not reflexive, it’s intensive, as αυτος always is.
Plutarch (Sextus Empiricus, rather?) just misremembered. He wouldn’t have been able to go on. The 4-line piece has to reconstituted from a number of sources. It was evidently well known (used as a skolion, perhaps?).
Ah, I see. I didn’t realize that you could have an intensive in an oblique case in Greek. “I gave it to self” would be silly in English, which may have led me astray.
But are there any other examples of intensive αὐτός outside of the nominative? Smyth 327 doesn’t seem to seem to indicate that possibility.
There are multitudes. Usually of course they’re attendant on an expressed noun or pronoun. That’s why I said “sc. ἐμέ.” It’s like Latin ipse. (Only while you can perfectly well say eum ipsum in Latin, you can’t very well say αυτον αυτον in Greek. For once Latin has the advantage over Greek there.)
One minor point: I don’t think ἀμώμητον necessarily shows familiarity with Homer, but I think its occurrence in the Iliad shows that it’s a word from the language of epic poetry–from a heroic, elevated register–and I think Archilochus uses it with deliberate irony to enhance the impact of the second half of the pentameter. Maybe “parody” isn’t quite the right word, but I think “irony” is definitely intended. As I mentioned earlier, I think ἀμώμητον lulls or deceives the reader into expecting a conventional heroic poem before Archilochus hits the reader with the anti-heroic second half of the pentamter. It’s only with κάλλιπον that we realize what happened. The meter reinforces this, with three long syllables before the caesura slowing the verse down, and then speeding up after the caesura with dactyls.
I’m very much in agreement that αυτον is clearly better than ψυχην, but αὐτὸς δ᾽ ἐξέφυγον θανάτου τέλος is really inert compared to τί μοι μέλει.
The Cologne epode is comparatively decorous,
Depends on what word you supply with menos.
I agree with Qimmik’s last comment about ἀμώμητον, it was only the idea that the word is a sort wink to Homer I really wanted to comment upon.
I understand now what you mean; if you read οὐκ ἐθέλων “oh, I didn’t mean to”, it’s certainly not pathetic. I saw the turning point only at the beginning of the next verse, expecting until that point something like “which I left behind unwillingly, so as to be able to creep up on the enemy from behind”, or some other heroic narrative resulting in the loss of said shield.
The way I see it, much of this depends on the delivery and the context of the delivery. I suppose that the fact that it’s a poem of Archilochus immediately made you anticipate this sort of insouciance right from the start, but with another sort of delivery context, delivered it in a particular way, wouldn’t it be possible to delay the real suprise until the beginning of the second couplet?
Not to belabor the point further, but I don’t think it’s in the tone of delivery–it’s right in the actual words (and in the ancient Greek system of values). Once you reach κάλλιπον, right after the caesura, you know he’s done something unforgivably disgraceful–and, instead of hiding it as any self-respecting Greek soldier would, he’s telling you about it. That’s the turning point. After he tells you that, οὐκ ἐθέλων is drenched in irony.
Again, the Spartan mother to her son going off to Thermopylae: “Come back with your shield or on it.”
οὐ φιλέω μέγαν στρατηγὸν οὐδὲ διαπεπλιγμένον
οὐδὲ βοστρύχοισι γαῦρον οὐδ΄ ὑπεξυρημένον͵
ἀλλά μοι σμικρός τις εἴη καὶ περὶ κνήμας ἰδεῖν
ῥοικός͵ ἀσφαλέως βεβηκὼς ποσσί͵ καρδίης πλέως.
Yo might find some of these words in Homer, but the language of this poem is not epic/heroic. The meter is trochaic tetrameter catalectic (catalectic means that the final metron has one less syllable than a complete trochaic metron), which is actually related to–in fact, a variant of–iambic trimeter. (See West, Greek Metre, p. 40.) Iambus is a genre that is completely different from hexameter/elegy, with different vocabulary and a different ethos. Iambus is par excellence the poetry of blame, and, in contrast to the elevated and formulaic character of hexameter/elegy, the language is, as Bart notes, earthy and pungent and concrete.
Hexameter and elegy are difficult meters for Greek. Without defining “formular”-- a loaded question–the formular, stylized language of epic must have developed at least in part to mitigate the difficulties, especially for aoidoi who were probably composing in performance. The iambic meters are closer to the natural patterns of Greek speech (I think Aristotle made this observation). For example, iambic meters, especially with their licenses, are free to accommodate words with the cretic (_ u _) or tribrach (u u u) patterns, which are completely excluded from hexameter and elegy. So iambic verse need not be as formulaic or stylized as the heroic meters, and can draw on a wider range of vocabulary. This point, I think, is illustrated by the range of vocabulary that Archilochus deploys in this poem. I would almost go so far as to say this is a poem more about words than about not generals.
This doesn’t seem to be a blame poem, although it could be a fragment of a longer poem contrasting Archilochus’ ideal general with some specific general who doesn’t fit the bill. At any rate, whether or not they are part of a longer poem, these lines stand by themselves.
Another genre, the epode, combines dactylic and iambic meters. Archilochus worked in this genre, too–in fact, I’m not sure any other archaic Greek poet wrote epodes–and Horace adapted it to Latin.
While personally I love the Iliad and the Odyssey, Archilochus is a breath of fresh air after reading them.
οὐ φιλέω μέγαν στρατηγὸν οὐδὲ διαπεπλιγμένον
οὐδὲ βοστρύχοισι γαῦρον οὐδ΄ ὑπεξυρημένον͵
ἀλλά μοι σμικρός τις εἴη καὶ περὶ κνήμας ἰδεῖν
ῥοικός͵ ἀσφαλέως βεβηκὼς ποσσί͵ καρδίης πλέως.
I thought that he was criticizing Homeric generals in the first two lines. They are flashy, but not good for the average soldier.
The words in the first two lines struct me as bouncy compared to the ending lines, which seemed measured and comforting. Did it seem that way to anyone else?
My audio for the fragment. No doubt it should be sung, but that’s beyond my talent.
I’m not sure—genuinely unsure—that I agree about the heroic color of αμωμητον. εντος αμωμητον is thoroughly unhomeric. It looks ready-made for epic, but Homer never uses anything like it—never uses εντος in the singular (a fact that to you suggests this is a “deliberately ironic adaptation of a formular phrase”—but what imaginable formular phrase?), never calls a shield “blameless,” only once uses the word αμωμητος at all and then only as a fairly vacuous epithet of Polydamas. If we had more Archilochus, or more archaic verse in general, we might be in a better position to gauge its flavor. I don’t see its use here as necessarily ironic. Couldn’t the tone be more like an aggrieved “It was a perfectly good piece of equipment too, nary a fault to be found with it, and I abandoned it with reluctance (… but hey, I’ll just get another, an equally good one.)”? It’s the nonchalance that’s outrageous. We don’t need irony too.
And I don’t agree that the relative decorum of the Cologne epode “depends on what word you supply with menos.” I don’t think that makes much difference at all. The dactylic metrical segment tempers the iambic ethos (many epodes engage in a tug-of-war between iambic with epic, as if they had a split personality, cf. Homer’s Margites), and the narrative is positively delicate compared with graphic obscenities of Hipponax (e.g. 21, 91, 92). For pure unmitigated filth, Hipponax is your man—not a breath of fresh air, more the stink of the sewer.
Campbell would have included the Cologne piece if he’d known of it. It wasn’t yet published.
On the οὐ φιλέω μέγαν στρατηγὸν piece, I don’t think the flash glam generals are Homeric, they’re just upper-class officer-class gits fussing with their looks/locks, nothing like the commanders in Homer (I think we are altogether too fond of seeing Homer refracted in Archilochus), and I don’t think it’s more about words than about generals or even not generals. And I don’t think it should be sung.
That’s enough disagreeableness from me for one day.
Ha, that must be one of the most contrary-minded posts in a long time. Put it in jambes and win the title of the academic Hipponax. Very instructive though, this entire thread actually.
Though I have nothing original to add given my profound ignorance of this subject, I’ll just note a few things I found in Cambell:
-Archolochus is familiar with and influenced by Homer (according to Cambell)
-the connection between meters and topic is not yet very strict in Archilochus
-e.g: most of his jambic and trochaic verses are also firmly founded in the epic tradition
Question: is West’s book on meters a good introduction to this subject, or is it too advanced?
Campbell would have included the Cologne piece if he’d known of it. It wasn’t yet published.
It’s in an appendix to a later edition.
Well, there’s disagreeable, and there’s disagreeable. But I should have added a smiley, or written “disagreement,” or both. I didn’t actually mean to be disagreeable, and I hope I wasn’t. And I don’t disagree for the sake of disagreeing, but only with a view to advancing the discussion.
But as to your question: A better introduction to Greek meter would be An Introduction to Greek Metre, again by West. It’s a simplified version of his Greek Metre.
An example of Homeric parody.
H: τείροντ᾿ ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες
A: πολλὰς δὲ τυφλὰς ἐγχέλυας ἐδέξω
No comment.
Oh, I wasn’t writing in earnest. Disagreement is fine and not one of your posts I’ve read so far is disagreeable. There’s an old Dutch proverb that says: when the big fish fight, the small ones eat the crumbles. Well, actually there isn’t, but there should be, and it’s precisely how I feel while reading your discussion with Qimmick and others.
Thanks for the advice about West and meters.
Thanks Bart. I can be tone-deaf sometimes.
Enyalios is indeed an epithet for Ares. He would have originally been a separate deity but syncretism did him in over time, it remained a productive cultic epithet if I recall correctly so it certainly wasn’t limited to literature. There’s a very cool tablet, KN V 52 (from Knossos, hence KN and in the v series) where he is mentioned:
a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja 1 [
] e-nu-wa-ri-jo 1 pa-ja-wo-(ne) (1) po-se-da-(o)-(ne) (1)
(all deities are listed as recipients)
Lady Athana (or possibly Athana and the Lady)
Enyalios, Paian (later epithet of Apollon and song form), Poseidon (P-dawg)
No actually, it’s rather unlikely Iambics were sung in the sense we would understand it. Think of a more sympotic context. I agree with you on the bounciness of the last line, I think it’s the repetition of ws with the coincidence of the brief pause after the first word.
https://soundcloud.com/philologikoskrokodeilos/arch-frg-60
Had to do a quick fire and forget in one (will try to redo later) and I think in keeping to a slower pace some of the rythym was lost (I definitely think there was some OOMPH to Iambs and trochees in recitation)
This is the cleanest discussion of Archilochus I’ve ever seen by the way. I don’t want to be the first one to post the naughtier bits. 
This is the cleanest discussion of Archilochus I’ve ever seen by the way. I don’t want to be the first one to post the naughtier bits.
Well, somebody has to. Here’s a description of ejaculation to contrast with the climax of the Cologne epode. In iambics, what else?
ἡ δέ οἱ σάθη … ὥστ’ ὄνου Πριηνέως
κήλωνος ἐπλήμυρεν ὀτρυγηφάγου.
From the Etymologicum magnum:
Ὀτρυγηφάγος: > Τρύγη, ὁ Δημητριακὸς καρπός· ἐξ οὗ τρυγηφάγος· καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ο, ὀτρυγηφάγος.
In Plutarch, τρυγηφάγος is a pest that destroys crops: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/plutarch-moralia_table_talk/1961/pb_LCL425.183.xml
So like a donkey that’s gotten into a field and swollen up from eating?
And here’s an etymology for you all:
Σάτυρος: > Παρὰ τὸ σάθη, τὸ αἰδοῖον, σάθηρος καὶ σάτυρος· κατωφερὲς γὰρ τὸ γένος τῶν σατύρων.
EDIT:
This entry is even better:
Ἀτρύγετος: >
Παρὰ θῖν’ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο.
Παρὰ τὸν αἰγιαλὸν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἀκαταπονήτου καὶ πολλῆς· ἢ τῆς ἀκάρπου. Εἰ μὲν παρὰ τὴν τρύγην, ὡς ἔνιοι, οὐ πλεονάζει· (τρύγη δέ ἐστιν ὁ Δημητριακὸς καρπὸς, ὥσπερ,
ὄνου κήλωνος ὀτρυγηφάγου,
ἀντὶ τοῦ κριθοφάγου, κατὰ πλεονασμὸν τοῦ ο, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ κρυόεις, ὀκρυόεις. Ὡς παρὰ Ἀρχιλόχῳ, τρύγαν οὐκ ἔχουσαν· ἢ μὴ τρυγωμένην· οἱ δὲ, ἄδενδρον·) εἰ δὲ παρὰ τὸ τρύειν, πλεονάζει. Ἄτρυτος γὰρ ἀτρύετος, καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ γ, ἀτρύγετος. Οὕτως Ἡρωδιανός. Ἢ παρὰ τὸ τρύχειν. Εἰς τοὺς Ἀττικισμούς.
ἡ δέ οἱ σάθη … ὥστ’ ὄνου Πριηνέως
κήλωνος ἐπλήμυρεν ὀτρυγηφάγου
Note the imperfect ἐπλήμυρεν.