the ship, the watch, and the symposium: archilochus

THE SHIP THE WATCH AND THE SYMPOSIUM ARCHILOCHUSrsquo

FRAGMENTS 2 AND 4 W2

Abstract The present article is a full-length re-examination of Archilochusrsquo frr 2and 4 W In the first place it shows that there is no compelling reason for assigningboth fragments to a single elegy composed or performed during a night-time watchon a ship as many scholars assume in the second place it offers a metasympoticreading of both fragments In fr 4 Archilochus uses marine and military imagery toconjure up a fictional setting that evokes the actual sympotic gathering

Keywords Archilochus symposium deixis performance

Of the elegies of Archilochus only a scant number of frag-ments remains These are nevertheless sufficient to offer a good ex-ample of the variety of subjects and subtleties that elegiac poetry ofthe archaic age lent itself to express Pain for the loss of a compan-ion (cf frr 8ndash13 W[est]2) alternates with scenes of military life(frr 2ndash6 W2) while nods to the moment in which wine plays its partare not lacking either (frr 2 and 4 W2) At least in part one can al-ready glimpse the profile of the wine-inspired poet which wouldbecome famous in the centuries to come although no space is yetgiven to the lsquobasersquo tones that his iambics at times take on1 Muchhere has the taste of casualness and the impromptu and the temp-tation to see Archilochus as a poet of immediacy marked by an ex-pressive vigor free from mediations has been a very attractive pointof view for critics of the past A large number of Archilochusrsquo ele-gies especially those more reduced in length can be contextualized

) I would like to thank C Meliadograve and H Spelman for reading and com-menting on an earlier draft of this paper Any remaining errors and all the views expressed in this paper are my own

1) For Archilochus the harsh-tongued inebriated poet see e g Callimachusrsquofrr 380 (ελκυσε δ δριμύν τε χόλον κυνς ξύ τε κέντρον σφηκός πrsquo μφοτέρωνδrsquo ν χει στόματος) and 544 Pf (το ˘ μεθυπλγος φροίμιον ampρχιλόχου) orAntipater of Thessalonicarsquos epigram AP 1120 = 20 Gow-Page (GPh 185ndash90) SeeDegani 1973 Di Marco 2010

RhM 161 (2018) 242ndash274

243The Ship the Watch and the Symposium

within the principally aristocratic sphere of social and cultural in-teraction that is the symposium2 In the archaic symposium whichat the time of Archilochus (ca mid-VII century BCE) alreadyshowed the characteristics of a relatively mature practice3 the com-munal aspect is that which prevails participants form part of agroup within their city which consolidates its own identity throughritual and song Poetry therefore amounts to a fundamental elementof social and cultural cohesion the lsquoIrsquo which at times emerges ex-plicitly in these compositions can be identified firstly with the audience of the poetrsquos companions but also with all those who willperform that same song in another time and place in the sympo-sium much is shared shareable and available to be performed re-peatedly as desired4 From this point of view the way in which weconceptualize the circumstance execution and meaning of an ar-chaic poetic text may be less obvious than it appears at first glance5This is I believe the case of Archilochusrsquo frr 2 and 4 W2 = 2 and

2) See Gentili 1969 Roumlsler 1980 Vetta 1983 Bowie 1986 Murray 1990 Slater1991 Gentili 1995 Davidson 1997 Stehle 1997 212ndash61 Catoni 2010 Hobden 2013Wecowski 2014 Cazzato Obbink Prodi 2016

3) Wecowski 2014 has recently argued that the institution of the symposiumemerged in the first half of the VIII century BCE or even two generations earlier A similar hypothesis (mid-VIII century BCE) had already been put forward byMurray 1994 (I owe this reference to C Malacrino) See also Catoni 2010 64ndash70Wecowski 2010ndash12 cf Dentzer 1982 429ndash30 (introduction of the ldquoorientalizingrdquosymposium around the late VII cent) For the chronology of Archilochus in addi-tion to the greatly detailed study by Graham 1978 72ndash86 who places him around650 BCE see Blakeway 1936 (early VII cent) Jacoby 1941 = 1961 249ndash67 (c 680ndash640) Gentili 1982 9ndash10 n 11 = 1995 241 n 11 (floruit not later than 660) Lavelle2002 For more general information on the early history of the tradition of Ionianelegy see Dover 1964 190ndash94 (with no mention however of the symposium and itsinterpretive relevance) DrsquoAlessio 2009 120ndash28

4) There is also however a wider perspective within which the compositionof the archaic elegy can be placed As early as 1986 E L Bowie had claimed in aseminal study that narrative elegies of considerable length composed during the ar-chaic age were intended for performance in competition at public festivals The 1992publication of papyrus fragments of elegiac poems by Simonides on the battles ofPlataea and Artemisium (POxy 3965 frr 1ndash4 10ndash17 W2) and more recently thepublication of Archilochusrsquo elegiac narrative of Telephusrsquo rout of the Achaeans(POxy LXIX 4708) have offered new elements with which the wider problem ofthe performance of archaic elegies and in particular the elegies of Archilochus canbe reconsidered see e g Aloni 2001 Bowie 2016 For the possibility that Archilfr 1 W2 was also intended for a more lsquopublicrsquo performance see Aloni 1981 31ndash49(perhaps reading too much into this distich however)

5) Cf e g the case of Archil fr 13 W2 discussed in Steiner 2012

244 Mass imo Giuseppe t t i

7 T(arditi) Several critics believe that these fragments belong to asingle elegy and that they illustrate a true ldquosymposium of warrdquo6

1 Two fragments of a single elegy

The first fragment which we will discuss (fr 2 W2) can be con-sidered a synthesis of Archilochusrsquo vocation

ν δορ( μέν μοι μ)ζα μεμαγμένη ν δορ( δrsquo ο+νος-σμαρικόςmiddot πίνω δrsquo ν δορ( κεκλιμένος

In this famous distich two images are juxtaposed which the poetseems to have drawn from the horizon of his own everyday life the spear ndash according to the widespread interpretation of the phraseν δορί to which I shall soon return ndash a flatbread and the wine ofIsmarus a wine which was therefore produced in Thrace whereour poet was engaged militarily as part of a colonial pursuit Thefragment almost seems to translate in a more concrete accurateperspective the essence of the poetics of Archilochus who in an-other equally famous fragment proclaims himself ldquoservant of lordEnyalius and skilled in the lovely gift of the Musesrdquo (fr 1 W2 = 1 Ttrans by D E Gerber)

The precise interpretation of fr 2 W2 has proven to be less obvious than a mere surface reading might indicate Critics in the1950s and rsquo60s called attention to several aporiae in the distichrsquosmost commonly accepted interpretation7 In 1965 and on variousother occasions in the years to follow B Gentili proposed a radi-cally innovative exegetic solution founded primarily on the inter-pretation of the phrase ν δορί In his interpretation this phrasemust have the same meaning in all three instances in which it is usedwithin the distich and cannot mean in the last of these ldquo(leaning)on the spearrdquo according to the most common exegesis8 What is its

6) ldquoUn simposio di guerrardquo is the title with which these fragments are pre-sented in De Martino and Vox 1996 II 592ndash4

7) For several detailed reviews of the relevant bibliography see Arnould1980 Bossi 1990 67ndash76 Gerber 1993 51ndash6

8) Gentili 1965 For the interpretation of δόρυ as ldquospearrdquo see e g Lasserreand Bonnard 1958 3 Tarditi 1968 60


exact meaning Gentili discusses the context in which Archilochusrsquofragment is quoted in Synesiusrsquo Epistle 130 Garzya-Roques9 Cy -rene is besieged by barbarians and the bishop himself is forced toendure long shifts on the cityrsquos night watch he quotes from Archi -lochus to highlight the fact that the archaic poet and Synesius findthemselves in a similar situation Hence Gentilirsquos conclusion thatArchilochus like Synesius was indeed referring to a night-time φυ-λακή Among Archilochusrsquo elegiac fragments there is in fact a frag-ment which explicitly refers to a watch spent together with somecompanions fr 4 W2 (= 7 T) The fragment in question is a smallscrap of papyrus datable to the late II century CE (POxy VI 854)in part supplemented from the citation of vv 6ndash9 in Athenaeus(ampρχίλοχος ν λεγείοις 1166 483d)10

9) The fragment is also cited by Athen 156 30f two other citations in theSuda depend upon Synesius (svv -σμαρικς ο+νος ι 645 A 0πνομαχ1 υ 441 A)

10) The papyrus fragment is conserved in the Toledo Museum of Art Ohio(inv 191523 recto) It should be noted that POxy VI 854 XXX 2507 (= Adespeleg 61 W2 elegiacs hesitantly ascribed by Lobel to Archilochus) and LXIX 4708(Archilochusrsquo lsquonewrsquo elegy on Telephus and smaller fragments) belong to the sameroll (same hand line-spacing and format LDAB 327MP3 122) The hand was iden-tified by Henry 1998 (see Obbink 2005 19 and 2006 1ndash2) who also offered furtherrefinements on published readings and supplements regarding POxy VI 854 Thetext presented here includes the revisions made by W B Henry I was able to checkthem against a high quality digital reproduction of the papyrus provided to me withgreat courtesy by Dr Julia M Hayes (Toledo Museum of Art) to whom I give mymost sincere thanks A reading that deserves particular consideration is νήφονες3 (9)which accounts for the traces on the papyrus much better than Westrsquos reading νη-φέμ εν which has been adopted by the most recent editors (Nicolosi 2013 and 2017see also Nikolaev 2014) On the basis of my inspection of the digital reproductionI am confident in saying that in v 9 the three letters at the beginning of the verseare most certainly legible (ΝΗΦ) The fifth as noted by Henry is without a doubt anu As for the preceding traces there is not enough room for έ[ι] as claimed by theeditores principes Grenfell and Hunt (compare the space occupied by the two let-ters in vv 3 and 8) instead the traces are compatible with a small-sized omicron(pace Grenfell and Hunt who exclude this possibility) The second omicron in v 5is quite similar in size and shape It is extremely probable that the sixth letter is anepsilon the curved stroke is mostly visible and the horizontal stroke is sufficientlydistinct The last letter ndash here too I concur with Henry ndash is rounded and two strokescan be discerned one on the left reasonably broad and the other on the right littlemore than a dot sigma seems most compatible with these traces If one accepts thereading νήφονες3 the elegy cannot conclude with v 9 in the following verses theremust have been an infinitive governed by δυνησόμεθα As regards the adjective νή-φων -ον this is attested with certainty elsewhere (i e with a clear distinction fromthe much more common present participle of the verb νήφω) only in Theogn 481


__ ()]()[ φρα[

ξεινοι[][δεπνον δrsquo ου[

οτrsquo μο( ωσαι[ 5λλrsquo ltγε σ=ν κώ˻θωνι θος δι σέλματα νης

φοίτα κα( κοίλω˻ν πώματrsquo ltφελκε κάδωνltγρει δrsquo ο+νον ˻ρυθρν π τρυγόςmiddot οAδ γρ Bμες

νήφονες3 ˻ν φυλακC τCδε δυνησόμεθα 5 ωϲαι Henry ωϲα[Croumlnert (1911 8) 6 λλά τε Athen cod (cor-rexerat Musurus) 8 ltγρει άγρ- Π 9 νηφόνεϲ[Henry νηφέ[ι]ν νed pr νηφέμ εν West νήφειν μέν Athen cod (ν ν Musurus) νηφέ-μεναι Bergk

The first verses are quite patchy there is mention of a ldquomealrdquo(δεπνον 4) and perhaps of ldquoguestsrdquo or ldquostrangersrdquo ( ξεινοι 3)The successive verses are however clearer to understand thespeaker calls upon someone to pass amongst the shiprsquos benches anddip into the wine since the men canrsquot stay ldquosober on this watchrdquo(νήφονες3 ˻ν φυλακC τCδε 9) It is precisely the mention of a watchhere that in Gentilirsquos hypothesis allows us to trace frr 2 and 4 backto a single elegy Therefore fr 2 must also describe a situation setaboard a ship ν δορί designates the ldquowoodrdquo the ldquoplankrdquo theldquobeamrdquo of the ship as per the Homeric use of δόρυ νήϊον(Il 15410 Od 9498) More precisely Synesiusrsquo epistle would sug-gest that the final verses of fr 4 W2 precede fr 2 ldquoposto nel con-testo che costituiva il seguito di questi versi il fr 2 puntualizza ilmomento della bevuta quando lrsquoordine era stato eseguito e il po-eta nelle pause dei turni di guardia sdraiato sulla tolda o sui banchidella nave poteva finalmente disporre del buon vino di Ismarogiusto compenso alla parca razione di pane del soldato e al lungotedio della vegliardquo11 Fr 4 would first give a glance of the casualnessof the afternoon meal (cf δεπνον δrsquo ου[ fr 44 W2) followed by arequest to pour the wine from the jugs (fr 46ndash9 W2) and then con-

and 627 (in both cases dat plur νήφοσι(ν)) see also Hesych ν 549 L The readingpreserved in the indirect tradition (νήφειν μέν) offers a lectio facilior that also turnsthe last two lines into a complete sentence I would like to thank C Meliadograve for dis-cussing some aspects of this problem with me

11) Gentili 1965 133


clude with fr 2 i e ldquouna semplice razione di pane allietata perograve daun ottimo vino che renderagrave piugrave tollerabile la fatica di stare in vedet-tardquo Fr 2 therefore describes ldquocon efficace realismo ed energica per-sonale intonazione una delle consuete vicende della vita in marerdquoA few years later Gentili would return to the matter to reiterateand in part broaden his argument concluding with an icono-graphic parallel Dionysus aboard a ship on the well-known cup bythe painter Exekias ndash the god appears reclining with his left elbowleaning against the bridge and his right hand holding a great hornfull of wine ndash mirrors Archilochusrsquo position as described in fr 212

This reading has enjoyed considerable favour amongst critics13

However its fundamental premise ndash the hypothesis that frr 2 and4 W2 belong to the same elegy ndash does not appear fully justified by acloser analysis of the passage in which Synesius cites Archi lochusrsquofr 214 The passage deserves to be quoted in full (Epist 13022ndash39)

Ασθάνομαι γιγνόμενος 0π το πάθους κφορος λλ συγγνώσH Τειχήρης γάρ εμι κα( πολιορκούμενος γράφω τς Jρας πολλάκις φρυκτο=ς Kρ1ν κα( αAτο=ς νάπτων κα( αAτς κα( αLρων τος ltλλοιςσημεα κυνηγέσια δ κενα τ πρόσω κατανομ1ν οMς πrsquo ξουσίαςχρώμεθα πρότερον οAχ Nκιστα δι σέ πάντα ρρειmiddot κα( στένομεν με-μνημένοι

12) Gentili 1970 120 On Exekiasrsquo cup see below (p 267)13) See Gentili and Catenacci 2007 85 where the scholars say that fr 2 ldquoal-

most certainly belonged to the same elegyrdquo to which fr 4 belonged see also Perrot-ta and Gentili 1965 65ndash6 Gentili 1976 Those in favour of the two fragments be-longing to a single elegy include Vetta 1983a XIVndashXVI Perotti 1985 Tedeschi1986 De Martino and Vox 1996 II 592ndash4 Aloni and Iannucci 2007 121 see alsoBahntje 1900 11 n 28 Bowra 1954 43 (cf Davison 1960 3) Ehrenberg 1962 Rus-so 1973ndash4 714 Aloni 1981 49ndash59 Gerber 1999 79 Bossi 1990 67ndash76 Steiner2012 41ndash2 Treu 1959 191 cites fr 2 in relation to fr 4 Diehl 1952 2 suggests thathis frr 2 5a 5b 11 and 12 (respectively 2 4 46 12 and 8 W2) might belong to thesame poem Giannini 1988 believes that the two fragments show a ldquomodulo espres-sivo analogordquo and that they could derive from two distinct poems Gerber 1999 79who does not seem to place great faith in the association between the two fragmentsdoes accept Gentilirsquos translation of fr 2 which in any event presupposes such anassociation F Bossi (1980 25ndash6 see also 1990 74) furthermore believes that theallusion in Theocr 763ndash70 to both fragments is a clue in favour of the possibilitythat ldquoessi fossero vicini anche per questo i frr 2 e 4 di Archiloco doverano far partedel medesimo componimentordquo however the only reference to fr 4 would be theecho ς τρύγα (Theocr 770) ~ π τρυγός (fr 48) perhaps a bit flimsy to supportthe deduction founded upon it

14) The value of Synesiusrsquo epistle for the critical interpretation of Archi lo chushas recently been brought to the fore by Nicolosi 2005 see also Burzacchini 2012


Nβης τrsquo κείνης νο τrsquo κείνου κα( φρεν1ν (Eupol Δμοι fr 9948K-A = 1748 Telograve)

ampλλrsquo Qπποκροτεται μν νν Rπαντα κα( τSν χώραν χουσιν οQ πολέμι-οι γT δ 0π μεσοπυργίU τεταγμένος 0πνομαχ1

ν δορ( μέν μοι μ)ζα μεμαγμένη ν δορ( δrsquo ο+νος-σμαρικός πίνω δrsquo ν δορ( κεκλιμένος

οAκ ο+δrsquo ε μ)λλον ampρχιλόχU προσήκοντα Vν τατα επεν Κακςκακ1ς πόλοιτο Κερεάλιος ε μS κα( προαπόλωλε τς ρ)ς Xς ltξιός γεVν ργον γεγονέναι το πρώην χειμ1νοςmiddot Yς πειδS τSν χώραν ε+δεν νZ κινδύνου κατέστησεν πίστησε καθάπαξ τC γC καί τ χρυσίοννθε(ς διαρμένοις Kλκάσιν π( μετεώρου σαλεύει15

The addressee of the epistle is Simplicius a prominent figure in theConstantinople of his day while the context is that of the invasionscarried out by the nomadic populations who had penetrated intothe Pentapolis as far as the city of Cyrene the date confirmed bythe information provided by Synesius himself is 405 AD In hisletter he dwells upon the unacceptable behavior of Cerialis duxLibyarum on behalf of the empire16 Against all expectations in-cluding those of Synesius himself Cerialis had become responsiblefor a series of terrible decisions in both the political and militaryfields to the point of facilitating instead of discouraging barbar-ian incursions against Cyrene Synesius is engaged on the front lineagainst the enemy by order of Cerialis he in fact writes from thewalls of the city under siege (Τειχήρης γάρ εμι κα( πολιορκούμε-νος γράφω and τSν χώραν χουσιν οQ πολέμιοι) constrained to ar-duous turns on watch (φρυκτο=ς Kρ1ν γT δ 0π μεσοπυργίU τε-ταγμένος 0πνομαχ1) made all the more desolate by the memory ofmoments of serenity once shared with Simplicius

The citation of Archilochusrsquo fr 2 W2 is inserted precisely be-tween Synesiusrsquo description of his current state as night watchmanon guard amongst the towers of the city walls fighting against sleep(γT δ 0π μεσοπυργίU τεταγμένος 0πνομαχ1) and the referenceto Cerialis to whom the ρά which immediately follows is ad-dressed (Κακς κακ1ς πόλοιτο κτλ) Within the discourse devel-oped throughout the letter the citation of Archilochus provesfunctional and efficacious insofar as it reflects Synesiusrsquo situation

15) For the text I follow the edition of Garzya and Roques 200316) Seeck 1899


burdened as he is with nearly uninterrupted watch duty Howeverthe precision with which Synesius describes the nocturnal settingof his labouring ndash the fight against sleep (0πνομαχ1) the torchesthat shine several times each hour and which he himself lights tosend signals to his companions (τς Jρας πολλάκις φρυκτο=ς Kρ1νκα( αAτο=ς νάπτων κα( αAτς κα( αLρων τος ltλλοις σημεα) ndashfinds no correspondence in Archilochusrsquo fr 2 Instead these detailsserve to intensify the dramatic tenor of Synesiusrsquo account The crucial element in the citation of the poet from Paros resides in theanaphor of the phrase ν δορί which from Synesiusrsquo point of viewmanages to adequately convey the laborious protraction of a cor -veacutee imposed by a general useless in war and oppressive in times ofpeace (πόλεμος ν ερήνH βαρύς as is affirmed at the beginningof the letter)17 Archilochusrsquo fr 2 does not depict a moment ofrespite between one watch shift and the next as claimed by Gen-tili since Synesius draws upon the fragment precisely to illustratehis nearly total deprivation of any moment of relief18 nor does itseem necessary to invoke a naval context for Archilochusrsquo distichMoreover it appears clear that the citation ndash a rhetorical expedientof which the author makes use various times in his letter19 ndash doesnot presuppose a wider narrative context in Archilochus but it is

17) It comes as no surprise that Synesius here takes inspiration from Archi -lochus whom he considered K κάλλιστος ποιητ1ν in his Calvitii encomium (114Lamoreux)

18) I do not believe that Lasserre 1979 52 is correct in stating that Archi -lochus is cited to illustrate the contrast between past and present as Synesius un-derscores earlier in his epistle (κυνηγέσια δ κενα πάντα ρρει) I in fact find itdifficult to believe that the distich could bring forth in the context of the epistle anldquoeacutevocation des joies inaccessiblesrdquo

19) On this see Burzacchini 2012 As Burzacchini points out Synesius in factcites Od 951 first and then shortly thereafter adds an Aeschylean touch with στέ-νομεν μεμνημένοι (cf στένω μεμνημένος at Pers 285) He then references an iambictrimeter taken from Eupolisrsquo Demoi (Nβης τrsquo κείνης νο τrsquo κείνου κα( φρεν1ν9948 K-A = 1748 Telograve) imitation of a verse from Cratinusrsquo ΕAνεδαι (Nβης κεί-νης νο δ τοδε κα( φρεν1ν fr 71 K-A) preserved by Stobaeus (41111) in thesection περ( νεότητος the verse by Eupolis cited by the emperor Julian as well(Misop 4 p 339 D) is therefore anything but a ldquotrimetro altrimenti ignotordquo(Garzya 1989 315 n 8) In general on the literary dimension of Synesiusrsquo epistlessee Roques 1989 Garzya Roques 2003a LndashLXX Hose 2003 Garzya 1958 = 1963claimed that Epist 45 Garzya Roques offers a ldquovariazione quasi un rifacimentordquo(p 161 n 4) of Archilochusrsquo fr 4 W2 in any event similarities between the two pas-sages do not seem very strong


in itself fully intelligible within the description laid out by the lateantique man of letters

In conclusion Synesius does not cite the distich in its qualityas a description of a nocturnal φυλακή similar to his own butrather because it can be read in relation to a military engagementwithout respite like the one imposed by Cerialis The close asso-ciation with fr 4 W2 cannot therefore be maintained and theprobability that both fragments belong to the same elegy becomesrather remote or at the very least not adequately supported by thedata in our possession20

2 Fr 2 W2 a failed symposium

According to the traditional interpretation of fr 2 W2 Archi -lochus describes himself while drinking and leaning on his spearThe linguistic premise on which this interpretation is based is thatthe syntagm ν δορί is strictly dependent upon the participle κε-κλιμένος21 Gentili however objects that in the sense lsquoto leanrsquo orlsquoto be leaningrsquo the verb κλίνω κλίνομαι requires the simple da-tive or πρός and the accusative never ν with the dative22 On theother hand ν δορί cannot have a meaning in v 2 which is radical-ly different from the phrasersquos meaning in v 1 lest the anaphor thatinforms the entire distich lose its effectiveness23 The hypothesis

20) Lasserre 1979 52ndash3 is also skeptical regarding the association betweenthe two fragments albeit for reasons rather different from those put forward heredoubts also in Gerber 1981 11 n 5 Nicolosi 2005 35ndash7 Burzacchini 2012 161ndash3The idea that fr 2 W2 is a complete poem is supported among others by Davison1960 4 Murray 1994 53 contra Rankin 1972 who believes it to be the introduc-tion to a skolion see also Clay 2004 50 ldquoThese lines probably come from a drink-ing song (skolion) and were meant to be capped by two lines of improvisation de-livered by another member of the symposiumrdquo

21) Pasquali 1935 92 (ldquoIn cima alla lancia bevo poggiato alla lanciardquo) Gi-gante 1958 50 and 51 (ldquonon si sdraia per bere ma si appoggia alla lanciardquo) Lasserreand Bonnard 1958 3 Treu 1959 23 Tarditi 1968 60 Mingazzini 1969 334 FelsonRubin 1981 7 LSJ9 sv κλίνω II 2 (ldquolean stay oneself upon or against a thingrdquo withreference to Il 3135 σπίσι κεκλιμένοι Od 6307 κίονι κεκλιμένη 1797 κλισμ`κεκλιμένη)

22) Gentili 1965 130 (already noted by Bowra 1954 38) see also Gentili1970 117ndash8 For instances of ν + dat in Archilochus see Gentili 1965 130 n 2

23) This point was underlined by Bowra 1954 37ndash8 see also van Groningen1930 76 Davison 1960 Ehrenberg 1962 Gentili 1965 130 134


that frr 2 and 4 W2 belonged to the same elegy allowed Gentili toreach the conclusion that the phrase δόρυ corresponded to ldquowoodplank beam of the shiprdquo24 This hypothesis though is implausibleas we now know and our interpretation needs to rely on more in-trinsic criteria i e the syntactic structure and referential content ofthe couplet

From a syntactic point of view fr 2 W2 is of course modu-lated by the triple anaphor of the syntagm ν δορί This modula-tion is not however homogenous and critics have not alwaysgrasped the peculiarity of the distich D L Page who deemed itquite traditional in terms of formular diction ndash ldquothere is nothingthat could not be said in the same or similar terms by a Hector toa Parisrdquo he added25 ndash found a Homeric antecedent for the anaphorin Il 17430ndash31 (πολλ μν aρ μάστιγι θοC πεμαίετο θείνων πολλ δ μειλιχίοισι προσηύδα πολλ δrsquo ρειC) As a matter offact the Iliadic passage does not fully account for our fragmentrsquossyntax In Homerrsquos verses there is a clear progression of graduallyshorter cola with a substantially uniform syntactic structure Thisuniformity is marked by the repetition of adverbial πολλά fol-lowed by the instrumental datives μάστιγι θοC μειλιχίοισι andρειC In Archilochus the articulation is instead markedly less ho-mogenous Of the three syntactic cola which make up the distichthe first two are for all intents and purposes symmetrical These aretwo brief nominal sentences in which the syntagm ν δορί is locat-ed at the beginning the first person singular pronoun appears in the dative and the verb lsquoto bersquo is implied But what do these linesspecifically refer to They are certainly not referring to just anywine but to the wine of Ismarus a city in Thrace not too far from

24) Gentili 1965 133 Davison 1960 had already claimed that δόρυ mighthere indicate the ship (without taking into account the context in which Synesiuscites the fragment though) Gentili 1965 130 objects to Davison that this meaningof the term is not attested earlier than Bacchylides (Dith 1790 M) and that ldquoanco-ra nel 462 Pindaro nella Pitica 427 per designare con δόρυ la nave sentiva la ne-cessitagrave di aggiungere il qualificativo ννάλιονrdquo (see Braswell 1988 103) Yet once heposits that frr 2 and 4 W2 belong to the same elegy his conclusions are not very dif-ferent ldquonulla impedisce che qui δόρυ abbia il suo primo significato di legno ovverodi legno tavola trave della nave secondo il normale uso omerico di δόρυ νήϊον ilqualificativo νήϊον egrave ovviamente omesso percheacute non necessario in un contesto doveil riferimento alla nave era reso esplicito dallrsquoespressione σέλματα νηός [fr 46 W2]rdquo(1965 133) See also Gerber 1970 12

25) 964 133 Cf Gentili 1976 19ndash20


Thasos (and perhaps not far from Archilochusrsquo biography either)Archilochus might have already felt that ldquothis was a wine with a historyrdquo26 since in the Odyssey it is precisely with the wine provided by Maron priest of the Apollon of Ismarus that Odys -seus is able to inebriate the Cyclops27 The hero describes it to the Phaeacians as a beverage sweet and divine (Bδ=ν κηράσιονθεον ποτόν Od 9205) with a potent perfume (δμS δrsquo Bδεα πκρητρος δώδει θεσπεσίη 9210ndash11) and unusually dilutedwith as many as twenty measures of water (Od 9208ndash10)28 There-fore an exceptionally strong wine and of a certain renown a winethat perhaps differs from the simple flatbread which precedes it inthe distich Does the passage really convey that modesty of re-sources that some scholars have read into it Nothing leads us tobelieve it really and the etymological figure μ)ζα μεμαγμένη29

could to the contrary represent a fine touch of poetic dignitas30

26) Bowra 1954 42 see also van Groningen 1930 75 (cf Arnould 1980 292)Seidensticker 1978 20ndash21

27) Odysseus had mentioned Ismarus shortly before this episode in narrat-ing the story of the Cicones (Od 939ndash40) By way of the association with Maronand with the city of Maroneia the wine also became known as Μαρωνείτης (Poll616)

28) The wine was still acclaimed in Roman times Prop 23332 Ismario mero (in reference to Polyphemus) Ovid Met 9642 Ismariae celebrant repetita tri-ennia bacchae F 3409ndash14 see also Verg Georg 237ndash8 iuvat Ismara Baccho con-serere

29) It has been suggested that Archilochus might be referring to the proverbμεμαγμένη μ)ζαmiddot π( τ1ν cτοίμων γαθ1ν (Diogen 321 and App prov 386 re-spectively Paroem Gr II 397 and I 43212 Suid sv μεμαγμένη μ)ζα μ 548 A)Others believe that the locus classicus of the παροιμία is a passage from Aristo-phanes (Equ 54ndash7 in particular 54ndash5 μο μ)ζαν μεμαχότος) where there is an allusion to the fact that Cleon had taken all the credit for the Athenian victory atSphacteria (see Thuc 429ndash30 4324 Sommerstein 1981 147) Lasserre 1979 54however claims that the proverb is unrelated both to Archilochus and to Aristo-phanes (as does Giannini 1988 36 n 21)

30) Scholars often note that the flatbread (μ)ζα) was more modest thanwheat-bread (ltρτος) because it was produced with barley flour and consumedshortly after kneading without being cooked as is suggested by some references inAthenian comedy What is true of V cent comedy though need not be relevant toour passage Regarding μ)ζα see Hdt 1200 Aristoph Equ 54ndash7 (with scholvet

Aristoph Equ 55a and 57a scholTr Aristoph Equ 55e Jones-Wilson) for the dis-tinction ltρτος μ)ζα see Aristoph Pax 853 Cratin fr 1762 K-A Telecl fr 14K-A Nicophon fr 61 K-A Zenob 112 (γαθS κα( μ)ζα μετd ltρτον) see Olson1998 67ndash8 ad Aristoph Pax 1 West 1978 307 (who cites Aristoph Ach 673 andVesp 614 regarding the fact that μ)ζα was kneaded shortly before being consumed)


If the distich were to end here one would believe that forArchilochus lsquobread and winersquo so to speak are ν δορί (with themetonymy of δόρυ for ldquospearrdquo already found in Homer) since theydepend on the fact that he is a fighter31 In other words being a soldier represents everything that counts and everything that guar-antees his survival At first glance this sentiment could appear tobe in tune with the tones of disenchantment and antiheroism withwhich the poet elsewhere describes military life32 Our under-standing of the couplet is however redirected by the addition ofthe third and final element of the series This last piece while com-pleting the distich also redefines its meaning as a whole

In terms of content the first two cola are complementarywhereas the third colon presents itself as a peculiar expansion on thetopic already touched upon with the mention of the wine of IsmarusThe concluding statement πίνω δrsquo ν δορ( κεκλιμένος presents a syn-tactic structure entirely different from that which precedes it it isnot a nominal sentence and its predicate πίνω presupposes as its subject that lsquoIrsquo which up until now has only appeared in the dativeThe change in the syntactic structure highlights the rhetorical impactof the anaphora33 As the phrase ν δορί cannot be construed withthe participle κεκλιμένος in the sense ldquoleaning on the spearrdquo34 it

31) For this sense of ν + dat often in conjunction with the verb εμί seeLSJ9 sv ν A I 6 and for a more general overview of the anaphoric repetition ofprepositions see Fehling 1969 194ndash7 On the metonymy of δόρυ for ldquospearrdquo see e gδόρυ χάλκεον Il 13247 LSJ9 sv δόρυ IIa

32) See frr 5 15 20ndash22 101ndash2 W233) I prefer to interpret the syntactic-semantic nature of the last colon in

these terms rather than speak of a ldquoradical semantic shiftrdquo as does Felson Rubin1981 6ndash7 see also Campbell 1982 142 Rankin 1972 473ndash4 Russo 1973ndash4 714The peculiarity of the final colon in Archilochus furthermore represents a differ-ence not to be ignored from the verses of Hybrias the Cretan (Carm conv 26 PPMG 909 ap Athen 1550 696fndash697a) often held to be an imitation of Archi lo -chusrsquo fragment στί μοι πλοτος μέγας δόρυ κα( ξίφος κα( τ καλν λαισήϊον πρό-βλημα χρωτόςmiddot τούτU γρ ρ1 τούτU θερίζω τούτU πατέω τν eδ=ν ο+νον πrsquoμπέλων τούτU δεσπότας μνοΐας κέκλημαι In this case it is evident that theanaphoric repetition underlines the fact that τούτU carries out the same syntacticfunction in each occurrence Taking into account the subject matter as well it doesnot seem to me (in this I concord with the reservations voiced in Bowra 1954 37ndash9Perotti 224ndash5 Tedeschi 1986) that the imitation is ldquocertissimardquo as claimed in Tardi-ti 1968 60 see also Clay 2004 51

34) B Gentilirsquos arguments in regard to this matter still remain valid There isno conceptual difficulty in imagining a soldier drinking while leaning against his


takes on a slightly different meaning (ldquoarmed with my spearrdquo ldquoun-der armsrdquo)35 At the same time this change brings to the fore the twoverbs πίνω and κεκλιμένος They are closely associated and in thisconnection the participle κεκλιμένος most likely indicates that thespeaker drinks while ldquorecliningrdquo This is extremely interesting forthe verb κλίνω is almost a sympotic terminus technicus36 In all like-

spear the problem is that this cannot be expressed in Greek with ν δορ( κεκλιμέ-νος pace Clay 2004 50

35) For similar translations compare ldquounder armsrdquo or ldquoat my postrdquo (Bowra1954 see Webster 1959 30 Ehrenberg 1962 Pavese 1995 Boegehold 2008 181 cfldquovigiliae tempusrdquo in van Groningen 1930 77) ldquoon active servicerdquo (Davison 1960 2but he ultimately prefers the translation ldquoon my shiprdquo) ldquoarmeacutee de la lancerdquo Arnould1980 291 with numerous supporting passages (including Aesch Prom 423ndash4Ag 439 Eur Suppl 593 Aristoph Lys 633) Cf also ν gπλοις ldquoin or under armsrdquo(LSJ9 sv ν A I 3 with reference to eg Hdt 113) Giangrande 1972 argues un-convincingly that our fragment is similar to Anacr PMG 3887 = fr 827 Gentiliwhere ν δουρί indicates the pillory on which Artamon lay his neck several times(cf also Burnett 1983 39 n 16) It is noteworthy that the phrase occurs in Adespepigr SH 9796ndash7 (a III cent BCE papyrus) in reference to Ptolemy IV Philopatorrsquos(221ndash205 BCE) excellence ldquoin war and the Musesrdquo (hλβιοι i θνατ1ν εAεργέται [οj]τν ltριστον ν δορ( κα( Μούσαις κοίρανον ρόσατε) similar expressions arefound in Antipater of Thessalonica (τν δορ( κα( Μούσαις απυτάταν kφεσον AP97904) and Leonidas of Tarentum (π1ς οAκ εAαίων K Λυκάστιος Yς κα( ρωτι mρχε κα( ν μολπn κα( δορ( κα( στάλικι AP 74493ndash4) As noted by an anony-mous reviewer (whom I thank for having brought these three references to my at-tention) these passages may suggest that Archilochusrsquo frr 1 and 2 W2 derive froma single composition but the opposition war poetry is too vague and common tobe a valid argument in this context In closing it is worth recalling that the funer-ary feast relief (Totenmahl) from Hekatontapyliane (Paros Museum inv no 758late VI cent) depicts a reclining heroic figure with a phiale in his hand above thefigure along with traces of a helmet a spear with three thongs suspended can clear-ly be seen (see Clay 2004 plates 13ndash19) For the identification of this figure withArchilochus see Clay 2004 40ndash54 who calls attention (p 50) to the rarity of thespear in this type of representation

36) For some examples with the simple verb see Hdt 12112 κλιθέντες δαί-νυντο 9161 καί σφεων οA χωρ(ς cκατέρους κλναι Eur Cycl 360 δασυμάλλU ναγίδι κλινομένU (Reiske καινόμενα L) and 543 κλίθητί νύν μοι πλευρ θε(ς π(χθονός TrGF fr 6911 κλίθητι κα( πίωμεν (cf Comic adesp fr 745 K-A τί πάθH[codd κλίθητι Meineke] κα( πίωμεν) Theocr 7132ndash3 ν τε βαθείαις eδείαςσχοίνοιο χαμευνίσιν κλίνθημες Ap Rh 11090 κεκλιμένον μαλακος ν( κώεσινο1ν Agath AP 52673ndash4 ποτ( δεπνον πελθTν ξυνC κεκλιμένην δρακον ν στι-βάδι This meaning is also attested for the compound κατακλίνω Hdt 2121d4το=ς δ αAτο Jσπερ ε+χον κατακλιθέντας πίνειν διανοέεσθαι Aristoph Vesp1208ndash9 λλ δευρ( κατακλινε(ς προσμάνθανε ξυμποτικς ε+ναι κα( ξυνουσια-στικός (see also 1210ndash11) Equ 98 κατακλινήσομαι Plat Symp 176a1 κατακλινέν -τος το Σωκράτους 222e1ndash2 τεκμαίρομαι δ κα( Xς κατεκλίνη ν μέσU μο τε κα(


lihood Archilochusrsquo line evokes the well-known practice in the context of the Greek symposium of drinking propped up with theleft arm while the body reclines on a bed (κλίνη) it may be ldquola pri-ma attestazione di simposio reclinato in ambiente ellenicordquo37 It waslong believed that the spread in Greece of this custom which findssignificant parallels in the Near East in the XndashVIII centuries BCEdated back to the late VII century Recent studies have insteadshown that this phenomenon should be pushed back by about a cen-tury that is to the latter half of the VIII cent if not earlier still Thisfact is not without significance for our understanding of Archi lo -chusrsquo poetry for he lived in an age in which with all probability thepractice of drinking while reclining had already been established forsome time38

But if the particular syntactic construction of fr 2 is meant toemphasize the self-representation of the speaker as lsquoa symposiast in armsrsquo what are the implications of this image Some scholars believe that the couplet is to be understood in terms of social in -tegration (and lack thereof) According to the recent reading byP Giannini Archilochusrsquo distich as a whole would in fact reveal apolemic stance towards the lsquotraditionalrsquo symposium ldquoLrsquoenunciatodel disticordquo he writes ldquolsquopresupponersquo la pratica del banchetto e delsimposio ed lsquoimplicarsquo un riferimento polemico ad essardquo39 Thiscould be dictated by the fact that it was now no longer possible for

σο (cf also Resp 2 372b5ndash6 κατακλινέντες π( στιβάδων στρωμένων μίλακί τεκα( μυρρίναις) Athen 865 363f οτε κατακλίνεσθαι παρ τος ρχαιος θοςCompare the usage of κατακεμαι in Xenophan fr 132 G(entili)-Pr(ato)2 = 21 B222 D(iels)-K(ranz)6 ν κλίνH μαλακC κατακείμενον Callin fr 11 W2 = 11 G-Pr2with Tedeschi 1978 (preceded by Reitzenstein 1893 50 see also Vetta 1983a XIVand n 3 Bowie 1990 223 Murray 1991 96) Xen Anab 614 κατακείμενοι δ νσκίμποσιν δείπνουν Note that when the verb κλίνω is used in this sense (in thepassive voice) it is often followed by ν + dat or πί + gen to indicate the place orobject upon which one is reclining (LSJ9 sv κλίνω II 4) Of course this is not thefunction of the phrase ν δορί in Archilochusrsquo fr 22

37) Pavese 1995 338ndash938) Note also Archilochusrsquo reference to the ldquouninvited guestrdquo the ltκλητος

(fr 124andashb W2 in tetrameters addressed to a Pericles who is without doubt thesame Pericles mentioned in the elegies as well frr 131 and 16 W2) see Fehr 1990

39) Giannini 1988 35 See also Bowra 1954 43 ldquoHis only furniture is hisspear and this provides the setting Even in these conditions he can enjoy it [i ethe wine of Ismarus] as if he were at some convivial occasionrdquo See also van Gronin-gen 1930 78


the poet to celebrate the symposium as he once had perhaps be-cause he had fallen into disrepute for his abusive words against hisown friends as Critias claims alternatively he could be lamentinghis vagabond life in contrast to the condition of more fortunatecontemporaries40 Such a reconstruction however is problematicfirstly it is founded on the hypothesis that frr 2 and 4 belong to asingle elegy secondly it assumes a close interconnection with thepoetrsquos biography ndash an assumption especially precarious in this caseNote also that there is not much in fr 2 that would indicate feelingsof socioeconomic malcontent41

O Murray has challenged this approach by arguing that theelegiac couplet need not be understood as hostile rather it suggestsa close association of military engagement and sympotic experi-ence The concluding statement πίνω δrsquo ν δορ( κεκλιμένος couldin Murrayrsquos opinion be paraphrased with ldquomy spear is my (rightto the) symposionrdquo He further adds ldquoI would then interpret thecouplet as a complete sympotic epigram sung in the symposion inpraise of the military life which is of course also the sympotic lifeArchilochusrsquo poem is a more elegant expression of the claim madein the skolion of Hybriasrdquo42

40) On Critiasrsquo criticism of Archilochus see Crit 88 B 44 D-K6 = Archiltest 33 Gerber (see also Lasserre 1979) Critiasrsquo reliability can be doubted though(Rotstein 2010 300ndash17) For Nicolosi 2005 36 and 38 Archilochus is ldquocostretto asostituire il simposio luogo della performance poetica con la lancia oggetto cheemblematicamente rappresenta il preponderante impegno militarerdquo ldquosembra piut-tosto lamentare con piglio apparentemente recriminatorio ma non senza argutaironia ciograve che la situazione di guerra reale o fittizia che sia gli ha sottrattordquo It isnot clear however why Archilochus would be portraying such a lsquoreal or fictionalrsquosituation

41) See Gerber 1970 12 (ldquothere is nothing very serious or critical in hiswordsrdquo) Commentators instead insist too much on certain details such as thelsquomodestyrsquo of the μ)ζα (ldquoun cibo umile adatto a schiavi e soldatirdquo according toGiannini 1988 36 see also Nicolosi 2005 38ndash9) Admittedly it is given to scape-goats in Hipponax (fr 81ndash2 W2 = 281ndash2 Deg[ani]2) and it may be mentioned inAesch Ag 1041 in relation to slavery (the text of the mss may be corrupt hereD L Page e g prints daggerδουλίας μάζης βίαdagger) In spite of that μ)ζα does not have anintrinsically lsquoservilersquo connotation note that Hipponax also mentions a δούλιονltρτον (fr 1158 W2 = deg1948 Deg2) and κρίθινον κόλλικα δούλιον χόρτον(fr 266 W2 = 366 Deg2) cf also δουλίαν τροφήν (Soph Ai 499) θσσαν τρά-πεζαν (Eur Alc 2) and θσσαν cστίαν (Eur El 205)

42) Murray 1994 53 (with reference to Carm conv 26 PPMG 909 onwhich see above n 33) see also Hobden 2013 37 and more in general Bowie 1990


Indeed the statement πίνω δrsquo ν δορ( κεκλιμένος cannot beinterpreted in wholly literal terms that is to say as a lsquorealisticrsquo orlsquomimeticrsquo description of a set of actions carried out in a determinedspace and time This assertion must instead be read on a metaphor-ic level only in this way can one give legitimacy to and make senseof that association between drinking while reclining and beingarmed articulated by the anaphor ν δορί which would be impos-sible in a literal sense43 We are faced with two acts intrinsicallylinked to the identity of the aristocratic eacutelite of the archaic agecommitted on one hand to performing their collective role in thedefense of the city and in military conquest and increasingly in-clined on the other to celebrate their own social primacy in thatsophisticated ritual of class membership that is the symposium Poetry mediates between these two ideal domains Archilochusspeaks as a combatant to his fellow combatants the lsquoIrsquo speaking inthis couplet is therefore better understood as a lsquosocialrsquo lsquoIrsquo withwhich Archilochus any one of his companions or any number ofother aristocrats can identify themselves From this viewpointfr 2 can be read as metasympotic poetic statement Intended for themoment in which that delightsome ritual of social drinking will becelebrated this couplet illustrates and conceptualizes that samemoment in a social and collective sense44

This metasympotic reading revealed in the fragmentrsquos conclu-sion also helps to illuminate other details of the poetic text Thereis no doubt that the wine of Ismarus reflects the wine being con-sumed by the participants of the symposium the same perhapscan be said of the kneaded flatbread (μ)ζα μεμαγμένη) which pre-cedes it in the distich It is worth recalling the fragment of Alcmanin which the furnishings of a symposium seem to be described sev-en beds (κλίναι) on which to recline and the same number of tablesstacked with loaves of poppy-flavored bread (τραπέσδαι μακω-νι)ν ltρτων πιστεφοίσαι PMGF fr 191ndash2 = 111ndash2 Calame) This

43) On the basis of the internal performative characteristics ndash ldquothreefold axisof referencerdquo (Depew 2000 62ndash3 see also Hobden 2013 36) ndash one could say thatthe predicate πίνω in the fragment clarifies who is speaking (the lsquoIrsquo of the poet) andthe moment in which he is doing so (the present) regarding the setting this elementcan be implicitly identified as much in the incessant toil of the soldier (ν δορί) asin the symposium (as suggested by the participle κεκλιμένος)

44) Cf Rossi 1983 Corner 2010 353 ldquoThe play of self-representation standsout as one of the constitutive pleasures of this institution of pleasurerdquo


suggests that the setting described is that moment after the mainmeal (δεπνον) in which the lsquosecond tablesrsquo (δεύτεραι τράπεζαι) areset and placed at the guestsrsquo disposal and the group proceeds todrink their wine together with sweets and other delicacies knownfrom sources as τραγήματα45 Bread (ltρτος) appears for the firsttime in a specifically sympotic context in the celebrated lsquometasym-poticrsquo elegy of Xenophanes (fr 1 W2 = 1 G-Pr2) Here guests aretreated to golden bread (παρκέαται δrsquo ltρτοι ξανθοί v 9) togetherwith honey and cheese and naturally an inexhaustible source ofwine (ltλλος δrsquo ο+νος cτομος Yς οποτέ φησι προδώσειν v 5) De-spite some skepticism46 we can perhaps surmise that Archilochusrsquoflatbread may have also had its place on the symposium table47

If this is correct and if the arguments discussed thus far proveconvincing then the couplet as a whole can be construed as a meta-sympotic commentary that is to say a text that while drinkingcomments on the very act of drinking The social act of drinking is

45) Despite the fact that the Alcman fragment does not speak explicitly ofdrinking or of wine the majority of its interpreters are in agreement in believingthat the fragment refers to a symposium (in the opinion of Calame 1983 370 ad locit is more precisely the Spartan ritual banquet the κοπίς being described on thistype of banquet see Athen 416ndash17 138endash140b) See Noussia 2001 357ndash8 (ldquoEventhough in Alcman the specific occasion remains unclear here too we find the de-scription of the furniture (κλίνη-τράπεζαι) and of the desserts which accompany thedrinking of the wine during a reclining sympotic feastrdquo) with further bibliograph-ic references Vetta 1983a LIV turns to Xenophanesrsquo fr 1 W2 for the description ofthe apparatus convivii De Martino and Vox 1996 I 179 speak of ldquoquasi secundaemensae simposialirdquo See also Boardman 1990 124ndash5 Murray 1991 92ndash3 For theδεύτεραι τράπεζαι see Plat Resp 2 372c Philoxen PMG 836e Aristot fr 675Gigon Nicostr fr 27 K-A Matro SH 534111ndash20 Athen 1444 639bndashd 1448ndash9641cndash642e for the τραγήματα see Athen 1444ndash76 639bndash658e

46) Colesanti 1999 71 n 98 ldquoIn Archiloco insieme al vino troviamo la μ)ζα(fr 2 W) non perspicua del simposio gli accenni al solo vino (ad es fr 4 W) delresto non sono indizio certo di simposialitagraverdquo

47) As also argued by Murray 1994 53 In regard to this matter I find it op-portune to underline that the flatbread (μάζα τrsquo μολγαίη) also appears in that sortof ldquosymposium of archaic formrdquo (Colesanti 1999 71) or better lsquorustic formrsquo de-scribed by Hesiod in his Works and Days (588ndash96) a passage which presents somesimilarities with Archilochusrsquo fr 2 (see Bossi 1980 26ndash7) Nor in Attic drama is theflatbread foreign to the imagery of the lsquorusticrsquo symposium which often evokes con-notations of the ideal and the utopian see Aristoph Eccl 606 with Ussher 1973 160(ldquoOf the eatables mentioned here the μ)ζαι and τεμάχη are features of thelater public banquet along with the garlands and the winerdquo) and Vetta 1994 204 adloc For the lsquorusticrsquo symposium see also Xenoph fr 13 G-Pr2 = 21 B 22 D-K6Aristoph Pax 1127ndash58 (cf also Eccl 44ndash5) Theocr 763ndash70


thus connected to the social identity of the speaker and his militarypursuit It may be surprising to find that in other contexts vio-lence conflict and war are to be banned altogether from the sym-potic space even if only as themes for song48 Yet the paradox isonly apparent Archaic poetry and especially sympotic poetry is amedium of social interaction as such it reflects the aspirations andneeds of different groups in different historical moments Nomedium is intrinsically more fluid49

3 Archilochusrsquo fr 4 W2 ldquoOn this Watchrdquo

Once we have properly established that there are no convinc-ing reasons to attribute frr 2 and 4 W2 to the same elegy the op-portunity for a new reading of the second of these fragments pre-sents itself Critics have discussed the details provided here byArchilochus with untiring meticulousness but the true problem resides essentially in the situation presupposed by these verses Inthe eyes of many critics fr 4 W2 describes a moment of improvisedconviviality in occasion of a military venture The fragmentrsquos tonewould therefore be that of a direct personal experience expressedwith traits of marked realism50 According to West who attributesthis type of composition to a ldquoless formal military settingrdquo in com-parison to other elegies here ldquothe poet is a soldier on watch withcompanions There is no need for heroic sentiments Antiheroicones are more comforting In fr 4 Archilochus is on a ship (beachedI suppose) and calls for wine to be opened lsquowe shanrsquot get through

48) Xenophanes (fr 1 W2 = 1 G-Pr2) offers a detailed depiction of such asymposium (see e g Hobden 2013 25ndash32 with further bibliographic references)The association between peace banquet and symposium can be traced back toHomer it was constantly reworked in subsequent centuries (see e g Od 1910ndash13Theogn 161ndash4 885ndash6) see the seminal study on the subject by Slater 1981 (see alsoSlater 1990 and Giuseppetti 2013 101 and n 83)

49) See Catoni 2010 6550) See Garzya 1958 = 1963 166 (ldquosituazione reale esperienza diretta e ac-

colta positivamenterdquo) Page 1964 129 (ldquopersonal experience described in detailrdquo)Gentili 1965 134 (ldquoefficace realismo ed energica personale intonazionerdquo) and Gen-tili 1970 120 Podlecki 1969 73 (the verses would have been written before Archi -lochus reached Thasos ldquoon this initial voyage certainly one very like itrdquo) Perotti1985 229ndash30 (ldquoPotrebbe trattarsi nel complesso della situazione di una nave daguerra sulla quale oltre al cibo e alle bevande per i soldati probabilmente merce-nari si trovano degli orci di vino pregiato forse riservato al comandanterdquo)


this watch soberrsquordquo51 For Gerber ldquothe boredom of keeping watchon or beside an anchored ship would no doubt provide Archilochuswith sufficient reason for drinkingrdquo52 Without turning away fromthe lsquorealisticrsquo interpretation M Vetta has suggested seeking an ex-ternal point of reference to the situation described by ArchilochusldquoIl motivo del festeggiamento senza moderazione (laquosnida il vino fino alla fecciaraquo)rdquo he writes ldquorichiama piuttosto lrsquoidea di una veg-lia priva di rischi magari successiva ad un fatto drsquoarme conclusosicon successo Archiloco ricrea per i compagni unrsquoatmosfera ed unasequenza di gesti che richiamano al simposio di residenza Egrave chiarodallrsquoaccenno frammentario agli ospiti (xeicircnoi) che non possonoesserci e al deicircpnon che egrave stato solo un frugale pasto di soldati dimare Lrsquoinvito laquogira con quel bicchiere per la naveraquo rivolto al com-pagno egrave la trasposizione dellrsquoinvito che nel simposio cittadino sisoleva rivolgere allrsquoinserviente Egli dovragrave attingere direttamentedagli orci anzicheacute dal cratere vino non miscelato con acqua edovragrave farlo col kṓthōn la grossa coppa militarerdquo In conclusion theelegy describes ldquoun simposio deviante dal suo rituale di oggetti egesti consueti in relazione ad un evento particolarerdquo53 Howeverthe line between lsquonormalrsquo and lsquodeviantrsquo as often occurs is in thiscase rather blurred For the situation in which the narrator findshimself to be lsquodeviantrsquo vv 2ndash5 need have a markedly negative con-notation These lines however are too patchy for one to draw fromthem a meaning of this kind There are no elements which confirmthat the guests ( ξεινοι fr 43) are absent or that the meal (δεπνονfr 44) is meagre54 On the contrary one could even claim thatvv 2ndash5 make reference to a conventional dinner party which thenin the following verses is described as if it were taking place aboarda ship

51) West 1974 11 West would also attribute Archilochusrsquo frr 1 2 and 5 tothis ldquoless formal military settingrdquo

52) Gerber 1981 3 See also Bowra 1954 43 ldquo when he is on watch in aship at sea he looks forward to a good eveningrdquo

53) Vetta 1983a XVndashXVI who for this type of lsquodeviantrsquo symposium alsorefers to Alc frr 332 335 and 346 V see also Catoni 2010 252ndash3 and Giannini 198841ndash2 ldquoIl poeta sta facendo dunque la guardia sulla nave (o accanto alla nave co-munque sulla terraferma) e vuole trasformare questa occasione di guerra in un mo-mento simposialerdquo

54) Gerber 1981 3 and especially Bowie 1986 17


In fact it is rather difficult to interpret the situation describedby Archilochus in the most legible part of his elegy in a wholly lsquore-alisticrsquo or lsquomimeticrsquo sense55 How can one be on guard duty whileat the same time calling upon companions to leave every trace ofsobriety behind If the poet was giving voice to an expression oflsquoauthenticrsquo military vocation how ever could he do so in disregardof his duty to remain vigil and alert as had already been prescribedby Homer56 Even those critics who have continued to support thelsquorealisticrsquo nature of the situation described in fr 4 W2 cannot helprecognizing at times that the poet would thus be displaying ldquounatteggiamento per lo meno spregiudicato nei confronti delle normemilitarirdquo57 There also exist other difficulties of a more general na-ture in the hypothesis that archaic elegy especially in the case ofshorter poems could have been performed in contexts other thanthe symposium or the κ1μος ldquoother proposed contexts ndash troopsmarshalled to enter battle soldiers on guard duty political assem-blies small gatherings in sight of a public fountain ndash are inade-quately supported by the texts citedrdquo58

If the lsquorealisticrsquo reading proves insufficient to account for thesituation described in our elegy it will perhaps be necessary topoint out that in general the relationship that exists between ar-chaic poetic texts and their performative contexts can be of severalkinds Very often the text may describe the actual context of its

55) This point is aptly highlighted in Bowie 1986 16 Cf the caution ex-pressed by DrsquoAlessio 2009 116ndash7 ldquoWe have no way of telling though whether thisparticular poem was composed for a performance while the poet and his compan-ions were keeping watch on a ship or whether it more generically evokes a situa-tion the sympotic audience or the poet may have faced or may have expected tofacerdquo See also Gerber 1981 11 n 6 who however maintains that ldquothe circumstancessurrounding the poemrsquos composition and deliveryrdquo do not have any bearing on theinterpretation of the fragment

56) See Il 7371 = 18299 1096ndash101 10180ndash93 10418ndash22 see also 8521ndash2and 8529ndash65 Hes fr 2943ndash4 M-W In the oration Against Conon Demosthenesaccuses the sons of Conon of being soldiers without merit since they drink all dayeven when on watch πινον cκάστοθrsquo οpτοι τSν Bμέραν πειδS τάχιστrsquo ριστή-σαιεν gλην κα( τοθrsquo qως περ Vμεν ν τC φρουρn διετέλουν ποιοντες rν οsνδειπνοποιεσθαι τος ltλλοις Jραν συμβαίνοι ταύτην aν tδη παρuνουν οpτοι τμν πόλλrsquo ες το=ς παδας Bμ1ν το=ς κολούθους τελευτ1ντες δ κα( ες Bμ)ςαAτούς (Demosth Or 543ndash4)

57) Giannini 1988 4258) Bowie 1986 21 See the persuasive discussion in Bowie 1986 15ndash21 see

also Bowie 1990 Murray 1991 Irwin 2005 35ndash62 and passim


performance but of course this is not an absolute rule At times thepoetic text becomes an instrument for the construction of a ficti-tious or so to speak imaginary situation with which the performerand audience can identify themselves in several respects the vari-ety of these possibilities for identification also depend upon thetextrsquos potential for reperformance59 The most important elementsfrom this point of view are naturally the textrsquos indexical signs thatis to say those indications regarding the subjects involved in com-munication and their collocation in time and space

In the case of Archilochusrsquo fr 4 what appears most evident isthat the subject is a lsquowersquo (Bμες 8 cf δυνησόμεθα 9) located spa-tially on a ship (σέλματα νηός 6) and temporally ldquoon this watchrdquo (νφυλακC τCδε 9) In regard to this it has been said that ldquothe referenceto lsquoguard-dutyrsquo in line 8 creates a bridge between the envisaged andthe real situation remote as that situation is from guard-duty it canwith relish be described as a lsquosort ofrsquo guard dutyrdquo60 In actuality itmay in fact be possible to assert that v 8 creates a bridge between theenvisaged and the real situation precisely thanks to the deictic tem-poral reference ν φυλακC τCδε (9) which essentially creates an iden-tification of the two From this point of view it is necessary to un-derline that the noun φυλακή may imply a temporal indication andspecifically refer to the subdivision of the night into shifts of guard watch duty61 This meaning is attested from the V cent on but it isworth noting that in Homer the noun φυλακή is always associatedwith the night in its primary meaning of lsquowatching or guardingrsquo62

But aside from this linguistic detail there is more generally speak-ing a lsquoconsonancersquo of extralinguistic nature which proves crucial

59) See in general Albert 1988 DrsquoAlessio 2004 and 2009 Cf also Bakker2009 123ndash4 Steiner 2012 38ndash40

60) Bowie 1986 17 with reference to Tyrt fr 1213ndash14 W2 (Nδrsquo ρετή τόδrsquoltεθλον κτλ) for the demonstrative adjective meaning lsquothis sort ofrsquo rather than lsquothisrsquo

61) LSJ9 sv φυλακή I 4 even in reference to the simple meaning of lsquowatch-ing or guardingrsquo LSJ9 adds ldquoesp by nightrdquo

62) Il 7371 = 18299 8521 91471 1099408416 The number of nightwatches shifts varied see Poll 170 Suid sv φυλακή (φ 822 A) Some ancient in-terpreters observing that in Homer the night was at times divided into three parts(Il 10252ndash3 Od 12312 asymp 14483) believed that the poet had subdivided the nightinto three shifts (e g scholA Il 10252 III 4816ndash491 E τριφύλακος γρ Vν καθdvμηρον B νύξ) Cf also Stesich PMGF fr 268 = 297 Finglass Simon PMG 644 =317 Poltera Eur Rhes 5 The sense lsquowatch of the nightrsquo is first attested in Hdt 951(πεν τς νυκτς w δευτέρη φυλακή)


The sympotic gathering generally took place after sunset63 and stay-ing awake that is lsquovigilrsquo to the very end despite the effects of in -ebriation could even offer at times a reason for the symposiasts tocompete with each other This is particularly explicit in a few latersources In Callimachusrsquo Παννυχίς (fr 227 Pf) for example he whomanages to stay awake (K δrsquo γρυπνήσας [συνεχς] μέχρι τς κο[ρώ-νης fr 2275 Pf)64 will receive ldquothe honey cake (τν πυραμοντα)and the kottabos prizerdquo without doubt it must have been a well-known sympotic game already familiar to the Athenian public ofthe late V cent as Aristophanes uses πυραμος as a synonym forvictory (Equ 277) Returning to our fragment of Archilochus wecan say that the nocturnal nature of the sympotic entertainment wasin itself sufficient to make any symposiast who found himself lis-tening to the archaic poetrsquos elegy come to the immediate realizationthat his own concrete situation was reflected in the poetic text65

A different possibility for the comprehension of the fragmentas a whole thus presents itself not the pure and simple descriptionof a single event but rather the construction of a fictional situationin which any symposiast could see himself This does not mean itmust be said that the fragment consists of pure invention with nobearing whatsoever on reality Precisely the fact that the accent isplaced with such clarity on the military service of the lsquowersquo whospeak these verses on the contrary leads us to believe that this do-main must have been very relevant to the social identity claimed byArchilochus and his companions The relationship between socialreality and poetic discourse in other words can be accomplishedin a very nuanced manner But we shall have the opportunity to goback to this aspect

For the moment let us return briefly to the deictic expressionν φυλακC τCδε (9) in addition to this there are in fact other ele-

63) See e g Ion Chius fr 277 W2 πίνωμεν παίζωμεν Lτω δι νυκτς οιδή64) On the meaning of the expression μέχρι τς κο[ρώνης see DrsquoAlessio 2007

II 658 n 6 On the sympotic nature of this game see in addition to the Diegesis (προ-τροπS τος συμπόταις ες τ γρυπνεν 108ndash9) Plut Mor 747andashb Athen 1456(647c) 157 (668c) Poll 6108 scholvet Aristoph Equ 277a Jones-Wilson εώθασιγρ ν τος συμποσίοις eμιλλ)σθαι περ( γρυπνίας κα( K διαγρυπνήσας μέχρι τςqω λάμβανε τν πυραμοντα

65) Cf also Theogn 1043ndash4 εxδωμενmiddot φυλακS δ πόλεως φυλάκεσσι μελή-σει στυφέλης ρατς πατρίδος Bμετέρης According to Ferrari 1989 247 the cou-plet has a metasympotic character but cf van Groningen 1966 389ndash90


ments in the situation described in fr 4 that may reflect the con-crete practice of the symposium The mere fact that the speaker expresses an order to pour the wine and drink without hesitationrenders him quite similar in some respects to the figure of thesymposiarch who had the job of supervising and moderating thedrinking party66 The figure tasked with unstoppering the jugs ndash aldquocompagno drsquoarmirdquo67 according to the common interpretation ndashfulfils here the same function as the πας who in some of Anacre-onrsquos fragments is at the disposal of the feasters and is naturally addressed in the second person68 It is therefore not surprising tofind the same objects used in fr 4 in sympotic contexts as well Theκώθων is a small wide-mouthed vessel fitted with a handle quitesimilar in form to a small pitcher Athenaeus after having citedfr 4 identifies it with the cup (κύλιξ) while the scholia to Aristo-phanes consider it the equivalent of the κύαθος often used to drawwine from the krater69 The κάδος substantially a jug or amphorais instead used above all for wine in a definitely sympotic contextit also appears in Anacreon70

66) Regarding the συμποσίαρχος see e g Xen An 6130 Alex fr 21 K-Ain the songs of Elephantine the figure is defined K ποταρχ1ν (το δ ποταρχοντοςπειθώμεθα Adesp eleg 279 W2)

67) Perrotta and Gentili 1965 6668) Anacr PMG 356a = 331ndash6 Gent PMG 396 = 38 Gent See also Alc

fr 3462 V (ltϊτα of debated exegesis however)69) Athen 1166 483d (Xς τς κύλικος λεγομένης κώθωνος Kaibel however

considers the passage suspect) scholvet Aristoph Pax 1094b Holwerda (τ νν λε-γόμενον κύαθον) for the usage of the κύαθος to dip into the wine see Anacr PMG356a5 = 331ndash6 Gent Plat Com fr 192 K-A Xen Cyr 139 More in general re-garding the κώθων see Athen 1166 483andash484c Lazzarini 1973ndash4 365ndash9 Accord-ing to Critiasrsquo Constitution of the Spartans also cited by Athenaeus the Spartansmade use of the κώθων especially during military campaigns since the rim of the cupallowed them to filter the impurities from their water (Crit 88 B 34 D-K6 apAthen 1166 483b see also Plut Lyc 97 Poll 697) Many commentators (seeamong others Gigante 1958 53) have sustained that this was the type of κώθων men-tioned by Archilochus It is however more probable that ldquoi Laconi avessero escogi-tato un tipo particolare di vaso per bere di uso esclusivamente militare del tipo ap-punto di una fiascardquo (Lazzarini 1973ndash4 368) it is hard to imagine that Archilochusmade reference to a specifically Laconian cup as also pointed out by Gerber 1981 2

70) See Anacr PMG 3732 = 982 Gent see also Athen 1145 472e Laz-zarini 1973ndash4 363ndash5 Aloni 1983 Aloni 1983 49 highlights that Archilochusrsquo fr 4represent the first occurrence of κάδος ldquoparola di origine semitica (o di sostrato)orientale dunque per i Greci che probabilmente la importarono insieme al conteni-tore che essa designava e al contenuto di questo vino fenicio con ogni probabilitagraverdquo


It is quite peculiar that Archilochus has chosen a ship as thelsquosettingrsquo of his fr 4 There may have been further details in the bad-ly damaged upper portion of the papyrus In any case this portionwas very short since the second line of the papyrus is the first of theelegy71 The choice of the ship can perhaps be understood better inlight of a sympotic metaphor carefully studied by W J Slater Espe-cially from the V cent on symposium participants find themselvesdescribed as passengers aboard a ship in situations that shift fromsmooth sailing to the raging storm One of the best-known episodesis recounted by Timaeus he informs us that ldquothere is a house inAcragas referred to as the Trireme for the following reason Someyoung men were getting drunk inside and their drunkenness madethem so feverishly crazy that they thought they were sailing on atrireme and had run into a terrible storm at seardquo72 The close asso-ciation between Dionysus wine and the sea on one hand and thesymposium with its behaviour language and apparatus on the oth-er are at the root of the literary success of the metaphoric identifi-cation of the symposium with a ship and its crew73 But remarkableinteractions can be found also in the context of plastic and figura-tive arts On a rather generic level it is worth recalling that certaintypes of vessels can assume not only the name but also in part theform of a ship (for instance the ltκατος the κάνθαρος and the τριή-

71) The mark in the lefthand margin of v 2 was interpreted in the editio prin-ceps as a stichometric indication West in his edition correctly interprets it as a coro-nis which together with the paragraphos signals the beginning of a new poem incorrespondence with v 2 on the papyrus ndash therefore the first of our elegy

72) Timae FGrHist 566 F 149 ap Athen 25 37bndashc (trans S D Olson)73) Slater 1976 (cited in Bowie 1986 16ndash18 in relation to Archilochusrsquo fr 4)

with reference primarily to Pind fr 124a M Dion Chalc fr 5d W2 Choeril SamSH 329 = PEG fr 9 (though Lloyd-Jones and Parsons wonder whether the fragmentshould be attributed to Choerilus of Iasos) Timae FGrHist 566 F 149 but also EurCycl 577 (Xς ξένευσα μόγις shortly after the statement σκάφος Kλκς yς γεμι-σθε(ς ποτ( σέλμα γαστρς ltκρας 505ndash6) Xenarch fr 2 K-A Eratosth CA fr 36Cic Orat 1164 (tempestas comissationis) Plut Quaest conv 14 622andashb For theassociation between Dionysus and the sea in a religious context cf e g the Ionianfestival of Dionysusrsquo return (Καταγώγια) in which the god came to the city once ayear in his own boat After Slater the theme of the lsquosymposium at searsquo has also beenexplored by other scholars see Davies 1978 Lissarrague 1990a 107ndash22 Gentili1995 262ndash84 Davidson 1997 44ndash5 Corner 2010 Steiner 2012 On marine imageryin Greek poetry in general see Kahlmeyer 1934 more specific are the analyses byBonner 1941 (the port) and Murgatroyd 1995 (the erotic sphere)


ρης)74 A more sophisticated case is represented by the famous lsquoeyecuprsquo by Exekias found at Vulci (c mid-VI cent BCE)75 Inside thiskylix the painter shows Dionysus reclining on a ship with a largedrinking horn in his hand two vine branches laden with bunches ofgrapes grow upwards from where the god is reclining and dominatethe scenersquos upper register in the lower register swims a pod of dol-phins The myth narrated in the Homeric Hymn to Dionysus (7) isoften cited in connection with this image the god shipbound pris-oner of Tyrrhenian pirates before breaking free makes wine gurgleprodigiously onto their ship and covers it with ivy and vines heavywith grapes (h Hom 735ndash42)76 To some scholars the cup paint-ed by Exekias may represent a perfect equivalent to the situation de-scribed by Archilochus in his frr 2 and 4 ldquoDioniso sulla nave dellacoppa di Exechias [ ] nel suo tratto realistico lascia facilmente im-maginare quale fosse la posizione descritta dal poeta il dio vi apparesdraiato con il gomito sinistro poggiato sulla plancia mentre tienenella destra il grande corno pieno di vinordquo77 It must however notbe forgotten that the scene portrayed by Exekias is first and fore-most ldquoa sympotic Dionysus on board a real ship either celebratinga komos or reclining in sympotic fashionrdquo78 or better yet ldquoit is thefirst known representation of him as a symposiastrdquo79 Thus an es-sentially symbolic image which intends to represent Dionysus asF Lissarrague writes in his lsquotriumphrsquo ldquoa symposiast on the wine-dark sea lord of plant life and ocean life and likewise master ofmetamorphoses and of metaphors that become visionsrdquo80 In other

74) ltκατος Telest PMG 811 Theop Com fr 4 K-A (cf Epicr fr 91 K-A)κάνθαρος Men fr 2464 K-A τριήρης Antiphan fr 2234 K-A Epinic fr 28K-A On ship-shaped vessels in general see Ambrosini 2010 I thank Dr V Parisi forher useful suggestions concerning this topic

75) Muumlnchen Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 8729 (2044)Beazley ABV 14621 LIMC sv ldquoDionysosrdquo 788 Daraki 1982 Lissarrague 1990a120ndash2 1990b 207 Mommsen 2005 21ndash6 Isler-Kereacutenyi 2007 171ndash87

76) Thus Pavese 1995 339 ldquola coppa di Exechias [ ] illustra non un realesituazione [ ] ma piuttosto il mito narrato da Hy Hom 7rdquo cf however Isler-Kereacutenyi 2007 185 ldquoAs Exekias had wished to represent Dionysos as a beardedsymposiast the image on the vase cannot have depended directly on poetry how-ever both express similar conceptions of the godrdquo

77) Gentili 1970 12078) Slater 1976 165ndash679) Isler-Kereacutenyi 2007 18680) Lissarrague 1990a 122


terms the icono graphy here invites us to conceptualize the rela-tionship that artistic language establishes with reality in a more nuanced way The image like the poetic text need not be a mere reflection of reality for it can evoke and mold in complex fashionour perception and understanding of what is real The Exekias cupalso demonstrates that Dionysus wine and the sea are already in-tensely interconnected in the mid-VI cent BCE Slater is undoubt-edly right in concluding that ldquothose poems of Archilochus appar-ently written at sea are no more likely to have been written at seathan paraclausithyra on doorsteps but they would make sense ifone spliced the mainbrace in onersquos own triclinium while claimingthe sea as dramatic backgroundrdquo81

The ship aboard which Archilochus describes himself and hiscompanions is therefore not necessarily a real ship and the situa-tion which he describes is not unequivocally anchored in a lsquoherersquoand lsquonowrsquo This situation rather refers to a scenario that would have been extremely familiar to the poet his audience and manyother hetairoi of their time ndash the aristocratic symposium The shipof which Archilochus speaks may be an imaginary one a sympot-ic ship and aboard it is described a scene in which the poet and hisaudience can easily imagine themselves82

The symposiasts reclining on their beds couches wouldhave been able to identify themselves with ease with the soldiers sailors aboard the ship since the σέλματα νηός (6) would be noother than the κλναι arranged along the walls of the banquetinghall (νδρών) the companion called upon to go up and down theship to pour the wine could have been identified just as easily withone of the servants placed at the guestsrsquo disposal83 At the same

81) Slater 1976 168 See Steiner 2012 for an ingenious metasympotic readingof Archilochusrsquo fr 13 W2 For a much-discussed Roman example compare HoracersquosEpode 9 with Fraenkel 1957 71ndash5 Slater 1976 168ndash9 contra Watson 2003 310ndash17

82) See Steiner 2012 41ndash2 A rather lsquoopenrsquo interpretation is offered by Bur-nett 1983 39 fr 4 would be ldquoa broken elegy whose pretended occasion is a stormat sea [ ] In the fiction the singer urges imaginary men to respond to the chaos ofnature with a breach of discipline and he seems to promise a moment of sublimesolidarity as their reward That moment of drunken defiance of both danger and or-der is recognised as worthy of the Muse and it is conveyed to the actual men wholisten to the songrdquo

83) As we have already had the opportunity to observe above there is noth-ing in vv 2ndash5 that would indicate a situation of difficulty or unease


time the very fact that the elegy presupposes a close relationshipwith the symposium as its performative context together with thealready discussed metaphoric connection between the symposiumand the sea attractively supports the possibility that from a the-matic point of view the scene described by Archilochus in fr 4might represent a further element of identification from the pointof view of his archaic audience Critics have at times insisted upon Archilochusrsquo presumed departure in fr 4 from the (assumed)usual sympotic practice they interpret it as a true lsquodeviationrsquo of hisdrinking party They stress the absence of the krater for exampleand even argue that the poet here intended to drink undiluted winethereby going against Greek customs84 Still it is difficult to believethat the passage makes reference to a generally stigmatized and inany case decidedly rare practice Furthermore π τρυγός (8) onlyrefers to how one should dip into the wine (i e down to the lastdrop so that none remains)85 Perhaps more simply the poet istouching upon the usual apparatus and proceedings of the sym-potic gathering in an evocative manner he uses marine and militaryimagery to conjure up the situation in which his audience would be able to find themselves For the precise reason that it was wellknown how the common drinking session would have played outthere was no need to describe in great detail every moment of theevent a simple evocation of the situation would have sufficed sothat the rest of the elegy could elaborate other elements Such aconclusion renders criticsrsquo exhaustive discussions on this and oth-er details of the scene largely superfluous86

84) Vetta 1983a XVndashXVI Giannini 1988 37 and 4185) Even when sources speak of exceptionally ldquointenserdquo drinks reference is

always being made to the high proportion of wine to water not to the total absenceof any form of dilution see e g Anacr PMG 356a = 331ndash6 Gent Alc fr 346 V

86) It has been pondered whether the σέλματα (6) of the ship are the bench-es of the oarsmen (Gigante 1958) or the bridge (Monaco 1955ndash6 187ndash8 and 1960Treu 1959 23 and 191 Garzya 1958 = 1963 164 cf Page 1964 129 and Gerber 19814ndash5) whether the ship in question is at sea (Gigante 1958 54 Burnett 1983 39) orit has been beached (West 1974 11) whether the verb φοιτάω (7) means ldquoandare sue giugraverdquo (Gigante 1958 51ndash2 with reference to Od 12420) ldquoattraversarerdquo (Monaco1955ndash6 and 1960 cf Page 1964 129ndash30) or even ldquoscendere [below deck] a guisa diombra nella notterdquo (Garzya 1958 = 1963 164ndash5 on the basis of an erroneous com-parison with Synesius) whether vv 6ndash8 represent a hysteron-proteron (Gigante1958 53ndash4) or not (Monaco 1955ndash6 and 1960) It has even been said that ltγρει (8)suggests a ldquolotta che deve sostenere colui che attinge il vino alla fecciardquo (Giannini


The metaphoric projection onto a symposium in progress ofa crew making merry aboard their ship could have assumed vari-ous connotations for Archilochus and his audience At this pointin history when many cities were growing in wealth and prestigethrough colonial expansion the images of the ship and the watchwould have been significant on multiple levels and also very ap-propriate to the joint sense of cohesion and exclusivity so oftencharacteristic of the aristocratic symposium Fr 4 might also refer-ence one of the many forms of entertainment that were standard at sympotic gatherings such as challenges to resist the effects ofinebriation demonstrations of how to drink from a difficult tomanage cup or other lsquotestsrsquo which abundant doses of wine made ascomplicated to complete as they were entertaining to watch87 Inany event the fact remains that the possibility that Archilochusrsquofr 4 describes a situation more imaginary than real should come asno great surprise the archaic symposium was the space par excel-lence designed for an established and lsquoexclusiversquo language ldquointel-legibile solo a chi partecipava alla vita comunitaria di una consor-teria politica (eteria) o di un piugrave ampio gruppo socialerdquo88

References cited

Albert W Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Geschichte und Typologie vonden Anfaumlngen bis in die augusteische Zeit Frankfurt am Main 1988

Aloni A Le Muse di Archiloco Ricerche sullo stile archilocheo Copenhagen1981

Aloni A Osservazioni su gr κάδος Acme 36 (1983) 43ndash9Aloni A The Proem of Simonidesrsquo Plataea Elegy and the Circumstances of its Per-

formance in D Boedeker D Sider (Hrsg) The New Simonides Contextsof Praise and Desire Oxford 2001 86ndash105

1988 41 see also Grazya 1958 = 1963 168 Page 1964 130) based on an uncertainderivation of the verb γρέω from the noun ltγρα ldquohuntrdquo (see Chantraine 1968ndash8014) or that with ξεινοι (3) the reader must identify ldquolaquostranieriraquo che assoldano i naviganti a meno che il termine non indichi i mercenaricirc stessirdquo (Garzya 1958 = 1963169) One cannot but agree with Gerber 1981 10 when he writes that ldquomany of thecolourful additions made by commentators should be banished from any discussionof this poemrdquo

87) See Steiner 2012 41ndash2 For entertainment of this kind see Slater 1976167ndash8 and Lissarrague 1990a 76ndash80

88) Gentili 1995 57


Aloni A A Iannucci Lrsquoelegia greca e lrsquoepigramma dalle origini al V secolo Conunrsquoappendice sulla ldquonuovardquo elegia di Archiloco Firenze 2007

Ambrosini L Sui vasi plastici configurati a prua di nave (trireme) in ceramica ar-gentata e a figure rosse MEFRA 122 (2010) 73ndash115

Arnould D Archiloque et le vin drsquoIsmaros (fr 2 Diehl = 2 West = 7 Lasserre-Bon-nard) RPh 54 (1980) 284ndash94

Bahntje U Quaestiones Archilocheae Diss Goumlttingen 1900Bakker E J Homer Odysseus and the Narratology of Performance in J Greth-

lein A Rengakos (Hrsg) Narratology and Interpretation The Content ofNarrative Form in Ancient Literature Berlin New York 2009 117ndash36

Blakeway A The Date of Archilochus in Greek Poetry and Life Essays Present-ed to G Murray on his Seventieth Birthday Jan 2 1936 Oxford 1936 33ndash56

Boardman J Symposion Furniture in Murray 1990 122ndash31Boegehold A L Ways of Reading Archilochos Fr 2 West in D Katsonopoulou

I Petropoulos S Katsarou (Hrsg) Archilochus and his Age Proceedings ofthe Second International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and theCyclades Athens 2008 181ndash90

Bonner C Desired Haven HThR 34 (1941) 49ndash67Bossi F Archil fr 2 (e 4) W QUCC 34 (1980) 23ndash7Bossi F Studi su Archiloco Bari 21990Bowie E L Early Greek Elegy Symposium and Public Festival JHS 106 (1986)

13ndash35Bowie E L Miles Ludens The Problem of Martial Exhortation in Early Greek

Elegy in Murray 1990 221ndash9Bowra C M A Couplet of Archilochus AFC 6 (1954) 37ndash43 (repr in On Greek

Margins Oxford 1970 67ndash71)Braswell B K A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar Berlin New

York 1988Burnett A P Three Archaic Poets Archilochus Alcaeus Sappho London 1983Burzacchini G Citazioni dotte come espediente retorico nellrsquoEpistola 130 Garzya-

Roques di Sinesio in U Criscuolo (Hrsg) La retorica greca fra tardo anticoed etagrave bizantina idee e forme Napoli 2012 157ndash68

Calame C Alcman Roma 1983Campbell D A Greek Lyric Poetry A Selection of Early Greek Lyric Elegiac and

Iambic Poetry Bristol 21982Catoni M L Bere vino puro Immagini del simposio Milano 2010Cazzato V D Obbink E E Prodi (Hrsg) The Cup of Song Studies on Poetry

and the Symposion Oxford 2016Chantraine P Dictionnaire eacutetymologique de la langue grecque Paris 1968ndash80Clay D Archilochos Heros The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis Cambridge

(MA) London 2004Colesanti G Il simposio in Omero MD 43 (1999) 41ndash75Corner S Transcendent Drinking The Symposium at Sea Reconsidered CQ 60

(2010) 352ndash80Croumlnert W Archilochi elegiae Goumlttingen 1911DrsquoAlessio G B Past Future and Present Past Temporal Deixis in Greek Archaic

Lyric Arethusa 37 (2004) 267ndash94DrsquoAlessio G B Callimaco I Inni Epigrammi Ecale II Aitia Giambi e altri fram-

menti Milano 22007


DrsquoAlessio G B Language and Pragmatics in F Budelmann (Hrsg) The Cam-bridge Companion to Greek Lyric Cambridge 2009 114ndash29

Daraki M ΟLνοψ πόντος La mer dionysiaque RHR 199 (1982) 3ndash22Davidson J Courtesans and Fishcakes The Consuming Passions of Classical

Athens London 1997Davies M I Sailing Rowing and Sporting in Onersquos Cup on the Wine-Dark Sea

Rλαδε μύσται in W A P Childs (Hrsg) Athens Comes of Age From Solonto Salamis Princeton (NJ) 1978 72ndash95

Davison J A Archilochus Fr 2 Diehl CR 10 (1960) 1ndash4De Martino O F Vox Lirica greca IndashIII Bari 1996Dentzer J-M Le motif du banquet coucheacute dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec

du VIIegraveme au IVegraveme siegravecle avant J-C Paris 1982Depew M Enacted and Represented Dedications Genre and Greek Hymn in

M Depew D Obbink (Hrsg) Matrices of Genre Authors Canons and Society Cambridge (MA) London 2000 59ndash79

Diehl E Anthologia lyrica Graeca 3 Iamborum scriptores Lipsiae 31952Dover K J The Poetry of Archilochos in Archiloque Vandœuvres Genegraveve

1964 181ndash222Ehrenberg V Archilochus Frag 2 D CPh 57 (1962) 239ndash40Fehling D Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor

Gorgias Berlin New York 1969Fehr B Entertainers at the Symposion The Akletoi in the Archaic Period in Mur-

ray 1990 185ndash95Felson Rubin N Radical Semantic Shifts in Archilochus CJ 77 (1981) 1ndash8Ferrari F Teognide Elegie Milano 1989Fraenkel E Horace Oxford 1957Garzya A Una variazione archilochea in Sinesio Maia 10 (1958) 66ndash71 (repr in

Garzya 1963 161ndash9)Garzya A Studi sulla lirica greca Da Alcmane al primo impero Messina Firenze

1963Garzya A Opere di Sinesio di Cirene Epistole Operette Inni Torino 1989Garzya A D Roques Syneacutesios de Cyregravene II Correspondance Lettres IndashLXIII

Paris 2003 (a)Garzya A D Roques Syneacutesios de Cyregravene III Correspondance Lettres LXIVndash

CLVI Paris 2003 (b)Gentili B Interpretazione di Archiloco fr 2D = 7 L-B RFIC 93 (1965) 129ndash34Gentili B Lrsquointerpretazione dei lirici greci arcaici nella dimensione del nostro tem-

po QUCC 8 (1969) 7ndash21Gentili B La lancia di Archiloco e le figurazioni vascolari in Studia Florentina

A Ronconi sexagenario oblata Roma 1970 115ndash20Gentili B Nota ad Archiloco P Col 7511 Fr 2 Tard 2 West QUCC 21 (1976)

17ndash21Gentili B Archiloco e la funzione politica della poesia del biasimo QUCC 11

(1982) 7ndash28Gentili B Poesia e pubblico nella Grecia antica Da Omero al V secolo Roma

Bari 31995Gentili B C Catenacci Polinnia Poesia greca arcaica Messina Firenze 32007Gerber D E Euterpe An Anthology of Early Greek Lyric Elegiac and Iambic

Poetry Amsterdam 1970


Gerber D E Archilochus fr 4 West A Commentary ICS 6 (1981) 1ndash11Gerber D E Early Greek Elegy and Iambus 1921ndash1989 Lustrum 33 (1991) [1993]

7ndash225Gerber D E Greek Iambic Poetry From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC

Cambridge (MA) London 1999Giangrande G Archiloque au pilori QUCC 14 (1972) 37ndash40Giannini P Il lsquoConvitorsquo di Archiloco (frr 2 e 7 Tarditi = 2 e 4 West) Rudiae 1 (1988)

31ndash44Gigante M Interpretazioni archilochee AAP 7 (1958) 51ndash5Giuseppetti M Lrsquoisola esile Studi sullrsquoInno a Delo di Callimaco Roma 2013Graham A J The Foundation of Thasos ABSA 73 (1978) 61ndash98van Groningen B A De Archilochi fragmento secundo Mnemosyne 58 (1930)

74ndash8van Groningen B A Theacuteognis Le premier livre Amsterdam 1966Henry W B An Archilochus Papyrus ZPE 121 (1998) 94Hobden F The Symposion in Ancient Greek Society and Thought Cambridge

2013Hose M Synesios und seine Briefe Versuch der Analyse eines literarischen Ent -

wurfs WJA 27 (2003) 125ndash41Isler-Kereacutenyi C Dionysos in Archaic Greece An Understanding through Images

Leiden 2007Jacoby F The Date of Archilochos CQ 35 (1941) 97ndash109Jacoby F Kleine philologische Schriften I Berlin 1961Kahlmeyer J Seesturm und Schiffbruch als Bild im antiken Schrifttum Hildesheim

1934 (Diss Greifswald)Lasserre F Archiloque frg 2 West GB 8 (1979) 49ndash56Lasserre F A Bonnard Archiloque Fragments Texte eacutetabli par F L traduit et

commenteacute par A B Paris 1958Lavelle B M The Apollodoran Date for Archilochus CPh 97 (2002) 344ndash51Lazzarini M L I nomi dei vasi greci nelle iscrizioni dei vasi stessi ArchClass 25ndash6

(1973ndash4) 340ndash75Lissarrague F The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet Images of Wine and Ritual

(Un Flot drsquoImages) Princeton (NJ) 1990 (a)Lissarrague F Around the Krater An Aspect of Banquet Imagery in Murray

1990 196ndash209 (b)Mingazzini P Spigolature vascolari ASAA 45ndash6 (1969) 327ndash53Mommsen H Dionysos und sein Kreis im Werk des Exekias Trierer Winkel-

mannsprogramme 20 (20022003 but 2005) 21ndash44Monaco G De fragmento Archilochi 5A Diehl AAPal 16 (1955ndash6) 185ndash91Monaco G Nota archilochea AandR 5 (1960) 19ndash22Murgatroyd P The Sea of Love CQ 45 (1995) 9ndash25Murray O (Hrsg) Sympotica A Symposium on the Symposion Oxford 1990Murray O War and the Symposium in Slater 1991 83ndash103Murray O Nestorrsquos Cup and the Origin of the Greek Symposion AION(arche-

ol) 1 (1994) 47ndash54Nicolosi A La frustrazione del guerriero in armi ovvero il simposio negato

(Archil fr 2 W) Prometheus 31 (2005) 35ndash40Nicolosi A Archiloco Elegie Bologna 2013Nicolosi A Archiloco Testimonianze e frammenti Roma 2017


Nikolaev A An Epic Party Sober Thoughts on νηφέμεν (Archil Fr 4 W2) Philo-logus 158 (2014) 10ndash25

Noussia M Solonrsquos Symposium (frs 32ndash4 and 36 Gentili-Prato2 = 38ndash40 and 41West2) CQ 51 (2001) 353ndash9

Obbink D [POxy] 4708 Archilochus Elegies in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri PartLXIX London 2005 18ndash42

Obbink D A New Archilochus Poem ZPE 156 (2006) 1ndash9Olson S D Aristophanes Peace Oxford 1998Page D L Archilochus and the Oral Tradition in Archiloque Vandœuvres

Genegraveve 1964 117ndash79Pasquali G Archiloco in Pagine meno stravaganti Firenze 1935 91ndash111Pavese C O Arch 2 T = 2 W ν δορί in L Belloni G Milanese A Porro

(Hrsg) Studia classica Iohanni Tarditi oblata Milano 1995 I 335ndash40Perotti P A Archiloco fr 2 D GIF 37 (1985) 223ndash31Perrotta G B Gentili Polinnia Poesia greca arcaica Messina Firenze 1965Podlecki A J Three Greek Soldier-Poets Archilochus Alcaeus Solon CW 63

(1969) 73ndash81Rankin H D Archilochus fg 2 D fg 7 (L-B) Emerita 40 (1972) 469ndash74Reitzenstein R Epigramm und Skolion Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexan-

drinischen Dichtung Giessen 1893Roques D Eacutetudes sur la Correspondance de Syneacutesios de Cyregravene Bruxelles 1989Roumlsler W Dichter und Gruppe Eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen und zur

historischen Funktion fruumlher griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios Muumln -chen 1980

Rossi L E Il simposio greco arcaico e classico come spettacolo a se stesso in Spet-tacoli conviviali dallrsquoantichitagrave classica alle corti italiane del rsquo400 Viterbo 198341ndash50

Rotstein A The Idea of Iambos Oxford 2010Russo J Reading the Greek Lyric Poets (Monodists) Arion 1 (1973ndash4) 707ndash30Seeck O Cerialis (8) RE III 2 (1899) 1982Seidensticker B Archilochus and Odysseus GRBS 19 (1978) 5ndash22Slater W J Symposium at Sea HSCPh 80 (1976) 161ndash70Slater W J Peace the Symposium and the Poet ICS 6 (1981) 206ndash14Slater W J Sympotic Ethics in the Odyssey in Murray 1990 213ndash20Slater W J (Hrsg) Dining in a Classical Context Ann Arbor 1981Sommerstein A H Aristophanes Knights Warminster 1981Stehle E M Performance and Gender in Ancient Greece Nondramatic Poetry in

its Setting Princeton (NJ) 1997Steiner D Drowning Sorrows Archilochus fr 13 W in its Performance Context

GRBS 52 (2012) 21ndash56Swift L A Archilochus the lsquoAnti-Herorsquo Heroism Flight and Values in Homer

and the New Archilochus Fragment (P Oxy LXIX 4708) JHS 132 (2012)139ndash55

Tarditi G Archilochus Roma 1968Tedeschi G Lrsquoelegia parenetica-guerriera e il simposio A proposito del fr 1 W di

Callino RSC 26 (1978) 203ndash9Tedeschi G Il canto di Hybrias il Cretese Un esempio di poesia conviviale QFC 5

(1986) 53ndash74Treu M Archilochos Muumlnchen 1959

Ussher R G Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae Oxford 1973Vetta M (Hrsg) Poesia e simposio nella Grecia antica Guida storica e critica

Roma Bari 1983Vetta M Introduzione Poesia simposiale nella Grecia arcaica e classica in Vetta

1983 XIIIndashLX (a)Vetta M Aristofane Le donne allrsquoassemblea Milano 1994Watson L C A Commentary on Horacersquos Epodes Oxford 2003Webster T B L Greek Art and Literature 700ndash530 BC The Beginnings of Mod-

ern Civilization London 1959Wecowski M When Did the Symposion Rise Some Archaeological Considera-

tions Regarding the Emergence of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet Archaio -gnosia 16 (2010ndash12) 19ndash48

Wecowski M The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet Oxford 2014West M L Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus Berlin New York 1974West M L Hesiod Works and Days Oxford 1978

Roma Mass imo Giuseppe t t i

Mass imo Giuseppe t t i274


within the principally aristocratic sphere of social and cultural in-teraction that is the symposium2 In the archaic symposium whichat the time of Archilochus (ca mid-VII century BCE) alreadyshowed the characteristics of a relatively mature practice3 the com-munal aspect is that which prevails participants form part of agroup within their city which consolidates its own identity throughritual and song Poetry therefore amounts to a fundamental elementof social and cultural cohesion the lsquoIrsquo which at times emerges ex-plicitly in these compositions can be identified firstly with the audience of the poetrsquos companions but also with all those who willperform that same song in another time and place in the sympo-sium much is shared shareable and available to be performed re-peatedly as desired4 From this point of view the way in which weconceptualize the circumstance execution and meaning of an ar-chaic poetic text may be less obvious than it appears at first glance5This is I believe the case of Archilochusrsquo frr 2 and 4 W2 = 2 and

2) See Gentili 1969 Roumlsler 1980 Vetta 1983 Bowie 1986 Murray 1990 Slater1991 Gentili 1995 Davidson 1997 Stehle 1997 212ndash61 Catoni 2010 Hobden 2013Wecowski 2014 Cazzato Obbink Prodi 2016

3) Wecowski 2014 has recently argued that the institution of the symposiumemerged in the first half of the VIII century BCE or even two generations earlier A similar hypothesis (mid-VIII century BCE) had already been put forward byMurray 1994 (I owe this reference to C Malacrino) See also Catoni 2010 64ndash70Wecowski 2010ndash12 cf Dentzer 1982 429ndash30 (introduction of the ldquoorientalizingrdquosymposium around the late VII cent) For the chronology of Archilochus in addi-tion to the greatly detailed study by Graham 1978 72ndash86 who places him around650 BCE see Blakeway 1936 (early VII cent) Jacoby 1941 = 1961 249ndash67 (c 680ndash640) Gentili 1982 9ndash10 n 11 = 1995 241 n 11 (floruit not later than 660) Lavelle2002 For more general information on the early history of the tradition of Ionianelegy see Dover 1964 190ndash94 (with no mention however of the symposium and itsinterpretive relevance) DrsquoAlessio 2009 120ndash28

4) There is also however a wider perspective within which the compositionof the archaic elegy can be placed As early as 1986 E L Bowie had claimed in aseminal study that narrative elegies of considerable length composed during the ar-chaic age were intended for performance in competition at public festivals The 1992publication of papyrus fragments of elegiac poems by Simonides on the battles ofPlataea and Artemisium (POxy 3965 frr 1ndash4 10ndash17 W2) and more recently thepublication of Archilochusrsquo elegiac narrative of Telephusrsquo rout of the Achaeans(POxy LXIX 4708) have offered new elements with which the wider problem ofthe performance of archaic elegies and in particular the elegies of Archilochus canbe reconsidered see e g Aloni 2001 Bowie 2016 For the possibility that Archilfr 1 W2 was also intended for a more lsquopublicrsquo performance see Aloni 1981 31ndash49(perhaps reading too much into this distich however)

5) Cf e g the case of Archil fr 13 W2 discussed in Steiner 2012
















__ ()]()[ φρα[







11) Gentili 1965 133



































25) Page 1964 133 Cf Gentili 1976 19ndash20

















































































































References cited







88) Gentili 1995 57






















menti Milano 22007

















































































__ ()]()[ φρα[







11) Gentili 1965 133




















































































































































References cited







88) Gentili 1995 57






















menti Milano 22007





















































































































































































































References cited







88) Gentili 1995 57






















menti Milano 22007



























































































































86) It has been pondered whether the σέλματα (6) of the ship are the bench-es of the oarsmen (Gigante 1958) or the bridge (Monaco 1955ndash6 187ndash8 and 1960Treu 1959 23 and 191 Garzya 1958 = 1963 164 cf 64 129 and Gerber 19814ndash5) whether the ship in question is at sea (Gigante 1958 54 Burnett 1983 39) orit has been beached (West 1974 11) whether the verb φοιτάω (7) means ldquoandare sue giugraverdquo (Gigante 1958 51ndash2 with reference to Od 12420) ldquoattraversarerdquo (Monaco1955ndash6 and 1960 cf Page 1964 129ndash30) or even ldquoscendere [below deck] a guisa diombra nella notterdquo (Garzya 1958 = 1963 164ndash5 on the basis of an erroneous com-parison with Synesius) whether vv 6ndash8 represent a hysteron-proteron (Gigante1958 53ndash4) or not (Monaco 1955ndash6 and 1960) It has even been said that ltγρει (8)suggests a ldquolotta che deve sostenere colui che attinge il vino alla fecciardquo (Giannini



References cited







88) Gentili 1995 57






















menti Milano 22007
























































































































References cited







88) Gentili 1995 57






















menti Milano 22007























































































menti Milano 22007


































































the ship, the watch, and the symposium: archilochus

Documents