A New Archilochus PoemAuthor(s): Dirk ObbinkReviewed work(s):Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 156 (2006), pp. 1-9Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20191053 .Accessed: 04/05/2012 06:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

A New Archilochus Poem

Archilochus is hardly allowed an existence as an elegiac poet. No one would have suspected that he

composed a long poem in elegiac couplets on a mythological theme. Now the rubbish mounds of

Oxyrhynchus have yielded a papyrus with just such a poem.1 Previously only two fragments of Archi

lochus gave us poems near enough complete to appreciate them as literary structures,2 and only one of

these was in elegiacs. The Oxyrhynchus papyrus now gives us a third.

The new papyrus offers one large and seven small tattered scraps from the same roll as two previ

ously published papyri containing elegiacs by Archilochus. The content, if straightforward narrative,

would be the first discovered and earliest known instance of a mid-length mythological narrative in

elegiacs. Since this is likely to be controversial, I offer a restored text and translation of the new poem and

related fragments more complete than in the Oxyrhynchus edition, illustrated by a multi-spectral image of the papyrus.3 A full description of the letter-traces may be found in the editio princeps. I also include

an apparatus criticus documenting my own suggestions, along with those kindly communicated to me

by various scholars to date.4

The task of reconstruction was begun when Edgar Lobel extracted fr. 1 from a box of papyri exca

vated by Grenfell and Hunt in their first season at Oxyrhynchus.5 This process will no doubt not end

here, but enough of the text has now emerged to recognize the poem as Archilochus' (which Lobel did

not) and to begin to appreciate its structure as something approaching a complete poem. The new fragments have the same format and second century handwriting as P. Oxy. XXX 25076

and P. Oxy. VI 854, containing line-beginnings overlapping (at vv. 6-9) a passage ascribed by Athe

naeus 483d to 'Ap%?A,o%oc ?v ?taye?oic (fr. 4 W.).7 All fragments have on their fronts the same cursive

writing, extensive accounts (names with patronymics and amounts, perhaps sales of consficated land). All were found by Grenfell and Hunt on the same day (27 February, sc. 1897). Thus it may be added to

our knowledge of the transmission of Archilochus that:

(i) Adesp. Eleg. 61 W. is by Archilochus, who used line 10 = fr. 1. 2 W. (or a variation thereof) over

again in that poem.

(ii) An elegiac poem ended after P. Oxy. VI 854 1, and a new one containing fr. 4 W. began at line

2 with (ppoc[ (as marked in West's, but not all editions).8

1 N. Gonis, D. Obbink, et al. (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. LXIX (London 2005), no. 4708, pp. 18-42.

2 Fr. 13 W.2 (quoted by Stobaeus) and fr. 196a (P.K?ln 11.58); possibly also frr. 122 or 128. 3 Plate 1 (not published in the Oxyrhynchus edition), a composite captured at 900-1,000 nanometers in the infra-red

spectrum in July 2003 by Steven Booras and April 2005 by Professor of Engineering Gene Ware for the Center for the Study of Religious Texts at Brigham Young University, that formed the basis for many of the readings and restorations adopted in

the text. See further POxy Online.

4 Where palaeographically viable. I have included the contribution in the present volume (Archilochus and Telephos) of

M. L. West (= West2; West1 = ap. notes to P. Oxy. LXIX 4708) and that of W. Luppe, Zum neuen Archilochos (P. Oxy.

4708), ZPE 155 (2006), \-A (= Luppe). I am grateful to Martin West, as well as to the editors of ZPE, for making these

available to me in advance of publication. 5 Frr. 2-8 were grouped by Grenfell and Hunt in a folder in another box with undated material and identified by me on

palaeographical grounds. 6

Adesp. Eleg. 61 W., elegiacs hesitantly ascribed by Lobel to Archilochus; line 10 could be restored as Archil, fr. 1.2

Kai Mouc?cov epai?]v ? pov 87uct[(xu?voc, but the preceding line is different from that otherwise transmitted.

7 The handwriting of P. Oxy. VI 854 and XXX 2507 was identified by W. B. Henry, An Archilochus Papyrus?, ZPE 121 (1998), 94, with further refinements to the readings in these texts.

8 A coronis here (now recognisable as the same form as in P. Oxy. LXIX 4708 frr. 3 and 8) was previously mistaken for

the stichometric letter 0 and interpreted as 'line 800'.

2 D. Obbink

(iii) P. Oxy. VI 854, XXX 2507, and the eight fragments of LXIX 4708 all belong to a single book

consisting of poems by Archilochus in the elegiac metre, according to the attested ancient grouping of

his poems into books by metres, an edition of Archilochus cited by ancient authors as ?v ?taydoic

(Athen. 483d, Orion Etym. col. 55.22 Sturz, and Et. Gen. s.v. 87cippr|cic all cite from it in this form).9

(iv) This was an extensive critical edition, equipped with cor?nides, paragraphoi, accents, diaereses, variant readings, and marginal critical signs. It contained short poems (fr. 8, six verses) together with

long ones (fr. 1, at least 24 verses).

The Text of the New Poem10

Fr. 1

u ? !^>!

? u

8? ??] [ ].[].. 6eo?> KpocT?pfi[c im' ?v?yicr|c o\) xp?i ?v]a?,[K??r|]v Kai KaK?xr|Ta ^?y?i[v,

rcJflMlafr' ?? [??|x]e6a 8[fii]a qnyye?v cp?t)y[?iv ?? tic copr| 5 koc? 7iox[? |?]o?>voc ?<?v Tr|?,?(poc 'ApKa[ci?r|c

'Apydcov ?(po?r|C?7co^'uv cxpax[?v,] o[i ?? (pe?ovTO ?c?ki|ll[oi,] ri Toca ?t] jio?pa (te v ecpo?et,

a?x|ur|Ta? 7iep ??vt?[c] e?ppeinic ?? K[aiKoc 7l]l7t/COVTC?V V?K1)C?V CT?W?TO Kai [tI?O?0V

10 M?aov, oi ?' ?7ci 0?va 7ioAD(pta)ic?oi[o 9a?,accr|c X?pc'] l)7t' ?|X?lX?KTOD (pC?TOC ?Vaip?[n?VOl

7ipo]Tp07ca?r|v ?rc?K?ivov ??)Kvri|Li[i8?c 'Axaio?

ajcn?aoi ?' ?c v?ac c?[k]\)tcOp[o]dc [ece?av jca???c x' ?Gavaxcov Kai ????(p?oi, [oik 'Ayaju?jivcov

15 "I?aov de iepf|v fiy? |iaxr|co|i?vo[Dc.

Apparatus criticus (* =

ego) Fr. 1

1 ]l pM??v [ ̂ ^ - M. L. West2 2 8? ??] West

Kpax?prj[c xm' av?yicnc W. B. Henry finem versus commate distinxit

West 3 ox> xpri ?v]aA,[K8?r|]v fere West (qui ?e? scripsit): ?(p[pa?ir|]v Luppe aut KaKoxr|xa ?iyei[ aut KaK?xr|x' ?X?yei[ -ei[v

* distinxit West 4 7i]fj|Li[a]T' eu * [ e?u]e6(a) West2: ?[mcx?u]e0' E. L. Bowie ?[fji]a

* (Callin. fr. 1. 14 W.

?rj?oxfjxa qvuycbv): ap[rj]a West2 (coll. //. 11. 836, 17. 721 u?veiv/uiuveiv ?^?v aprja) cpe\>y[eiv ?? xic copr| West coll. Od. 11. 330, 379: cp?\>y[eiv y?p aueivov E. Livrea: (p?i>y[ov ?? Kai ?cO^o? D. J. Mastronarde (cf. Tyrt. 5.8): (pe?ylov ?? Kai a?Xoi

A. L. Boegehold: (pe?)y[ov ?? Kai a?x?c se. Archilochus C. Murgia 5 Kai 7iox[e ujouvoc ?cbv West (//. 4. 388, 17. 94)

'ApKa[ci?nc *

(Hes. Cat. fr. 165. 8 M.-W., 72. 8 Hirschberger TrjX,e(pov 'ApKaci?nv; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. 'ApKa?ia) 6

cxpax[?v *

o[i ?? (pe?ovxo *: o[i ?' ?7tevovxo Livrea: o[\)?' ?y?vovxo West: de o[i ?' ?XaOovxo] ??,KT)[c cogitavit West2:

ax[pi p??0pcov Luppe 7 a?KUi[oi *: ?Xicrj[c dubitanter West2 post Luppe: a?,Kiji[oc Luppe fj x?ca dispexit R. Janko: ?]c x?ca West2 sed vestigium minus convenit 8 a?%ur|xa? et ??vxe[c P. J. Parsons Ttep Janko K[a?KOc

* (Hes. Theog.

343) 9 7i]i7ixovxcov vekucov cxeivexo *

(//. 10. 199-200 vekdcov ?iecpaivexo x&poc / Tcutxovxcov + 21. 220 cxeivojievoc

veic?ecci, cf. Triph. 543 ?cxe?vexo ?' "iXioc ipn / Ttutx?vxcov veicucov): ?-ovo]vxcov kxX. spatio brevius Luppe Kai [tce??ov *

(Pi. O. 9. 71, /. 8. 50-1; Eurip. Teleph. fr. 696. 16 K., 1. 16 Preiser; Paus. 1.4. 6, 8.45. 7) 10 M?ciov West coll. Siebeiis

ap. Paus. 1.4.6 Oiva et -?oi[o 6a?c?ccr|c (Archil, fr. 13. 3 W.) * 11 x?pc'] West (//. 16. 420', 452,' 21. 208, cf. Archil,

fr. 24.13 W.): xouc]... ?vaipo[u?VODc H. Maehler ajiiei^?KXo'? Janko 12 * 13 *: [?'qyoyov West 14-15 * 14

[oik 'Ayauiuvcov *

(Ibyc. PMGF S151. 20-1 xcov] u?v Kpeicov 'Ayauifuvcov] / ?p^e): [oix ?ioc aka Livrea coll. A. R. 1.

1045-9; U. Bianchi, AIOIAIIA (Roma 1953)

9 Thus confirming the hypothesis of W. Cr?nert, Archilochi elegiae (G?ttingen 1911), 3 (with regard to P. Oxy. VI

854). 10 Frr. 1-2. Insofar as individual words can be made out, frr. 3-8 give: ??vvoci]ya?o\) (fr. 3. 1), ?p(pvrj[i (fr. 3.2), ?(pp'

eu 7caca[ (fr. 4. 3), ]7ipcox [ (fr. 6. 8), and ?]cxea Xe[i)K? (fr. 6.9). The order of frr. 1-8 in P. Oxy. LXIX 4708 relative to each

other, as well as to the fragmentary poems preserved in P. Oxy. VI 854 and XXX 2507, is undetermined.

A New Archilochus Poem 3

y '.*?

*. 'r f '^ ̂̂ th: *^7*f h ? ̂ ?Set.

? vvaia?N ;Hf*rjjv ̂.^ ^^ X

? er^ " * v ^ '->f iTt'?- vaQjm <*{***

' - -? iff

IV' ^ *

^

s

f.-. ?JT-T*? &QI.\'JT*. V*f:4*?* -Abt

^M?

r ./:'"r

:.i r?

- f

--?'

'***## iHC

;jt&&*e'nrunc? y

} -?/. ?

ffit?fl'.

?7tf*V?

..-9; ?

4* .it CC

T

0 *

is; cf.

m

Image courtesy of the Papyrological Imaging Laboratory at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 2005. All rights reserved

4 D. Obbink

16 o]? ?? TOT? ?Aaq)0?VT?C O?o?> 7cap? G[?V' ?cp?KOVTO, T?]{)?pavToc ?' ?paT?iv npbc Tto?av [?]|[?7i?cov,

?]v0a [|i]?vOC 71V??0VT?C 0|Llf?)C a\)T0[l T? KGCl UC7COI

?(pp[a?i]r|i (i?ya?coc 0d|liOv ?icrjX?[?aT0 20 (p]avTO y?p i)\|/?7tu?ov Tpcocov noXxv ?ic[ava?aiv?iv

a?]\j/a* (i[?]TTiv ?' kn?xzov Mi)ci?a 7iDpo(p?po[v.

fHpaK?,]?r|c ?' r?VTT|c[?] ?ocov Ta?,[a]Kap?iov [d??v, o?]pov ?|i[e]i?,iK[TOv] ori'icoi ?v [tto?]?|ll[c?i,

T]r|?,?(pov, oc Aavao?ci Kaicriv [t]o[t? cpu?av ?v?pcac 25 Ti]p?i?? [rcpo^axoc, nax?u xapi?o|i[?voc.

...].[.]...[.]..[

...]....[.].9a.[

Fr.2

col. i col. ii

] ?^Ok[?? ] El

] y?CK?7capv[ov

] Tcaxnp 5 . ]0|i?V0DC [

] ?p?T?ll ] K[a]K?TT|TOC ']'

].

10 ] .[ ]ou . [

...[

].[

16 o]i ?? x?xe * 9[?v' ??p?KOVXo Janko: 9[?va u?v tjkov Luppe: 9' [opu,ov ?taxccav vel 6' [?ecav opuouc exempli gratia

West1-2 17 ?]?[??Tecov West1: [eicave?av West2: [eice?a^ov Luppe 18 ?^vOa Janko ujevoc rcve?ovxec *

?u?dc *,

sed ?jLtcoc possis a\)xo[? xe KaiutTioi *

(//. 13. 684,17. 644, Aesch. Sept. 393 coll. West): a\)xo[c%e?ov (e.g. r^Gov, cf. Tyrt. fr. 11. 12 W.) Parsons (e?^av Luppe): at>x?[ccuxoi av?pec Livrea 19 ?(pp[a?i]rji

* (Hes. Op. 134) dcKTjx?[?axo *, cf.

Ap. Soph. 18. 29 ?icrix?oaxo- ekvnovvxo fort, ex Archilocho, cf. //. 17. 637 (with v.l. -?axo), 18. 29 Ouuov ocKTix?uevai

(Livrea): ?icr|x?[uevoi Luppe 20 (p]?vxo West: x]fjv

xe conieceram: x]fjv pa J. Danielewicz coll. //. 5. 511 f| yap pa

eic[ava?aiveiv *: idem vel ek[ava?fjvai West: e?c[a<piK?c9ai W. Burkert 21 a?]ya- fx[?]xrjv Boegehold: ?p]7tay[?]T)v Luppe coll. A. R. 1. 1017,4. 876: q>?]v jui?v yrjv

Burkert (cf. A. R. 1. 348-9 ya?av / Muci?' ?vacxr|ceiv auxocxe?ov): cxfj]cav

(//. 23. 745, Od. 19. 188) vel uiAJjuov (//.' 5."7?0-1) yrjv Danielewicz: *K]aMi[y]wiv West2: K]aUi[(pHv (Nonn. D. 5. 198, 15. 171, 16. 76) conieceram, sed in Archilocho -fj vel -?a necessest (G. Burzacchini) ?rcaxeov restit. Janko: eTiaxeuv pap.,

cf. Eurip. Teleph. fr. 696. 16 K., 1. 16 Preiser cxpax?c x? Muccov rce?i' ?7c[i]cxpa)(p?v rcaxe? (Maehler) 7rupo(popo[v *

(cf. Pi.

/. 8.49-50) 22 'HpaK^J?nc ?' * fjvxr|c[? West: ?v? xfj?[e conieceram: fji xf|?[e voluit Burkert (cf. ad 23) ?o?v *, cf.

Pi. P. 6. 36 (se. Nestor) ?oace rca??a ov (H. Pellicia): e]?ocov Luppe xa^[a]Kap?iov [\)i?v *

(Hes. Scut. 424): [??vxa Luppe 23 o\)]pov ?|i[e]i?,iK[xov West (cf. 11): aK]pov ?x[iK]x' ?levai Burkert (sed minus vestigiis aptum): ocKJpov ?jLL[Ei]X<i%[ir|c Luppe ?ri'icoi ?v [7toA,]?jLL[cot

* (//. 5. 117, Tyrt. fr. 11. 18 W.) 24 T]r|Xe(pov

* ?c Aavao?ci Janko: oc x' otpa xo?ci Burkert Kaicriv

* x]o[xe (px>?av ?v?pcac West: ?]rc[eur|caxo uo?pav Janko: x]o[xe umpov ?rcopcac Livrea: ?]v[vnv

7cepia7cxcov Luppe 25 fj]pei?e[v uo]?>voc West fj]pei?e [npo]\xaxoc vel fi]pei?e[v x' a]uaxoc G. B. D'Alessio xaPl?o jx[evoc *, cf. Hes. Th. 580 xapi?ouevoc Au Tiaxpi (Livrea) 29 ] 9a [, -9av[ fort, aptius vestigio: -QaX[ West

Fr. 2, col. i

3 ye oc?7iapv[ov West coll. Od. 9. 391 7 *

A New Archilochus Poem 5

Translation

Fr. 1

Tf there is no need to call it weakness and cowardice, (to suffer) under the compulsion of a god, then we

did well to hasten to flee our dire pains: there exists a proper time for flight. Even once Telephus, descendant of Arkasos, by himself put to flight the great army of Argives, and they fled -

indeed, so

greatly was the fate of the gods routing them - powerful spear-men though they were. The fair-flowing

river Kaikos and the plain of Mysia were stuffed with the falling corpses, while the well-greaved

Acheans, being slain at the hands of the relentless man (Telephus), turned-off with headlong speed to

the shore of the much-resounding sea. Gladly did they embark on their swift ships, the sons of the

immortals and brothers, whom Agamemnon was leading to holy Ilios to wage war. But on that

occasion, because they had lost their way, they had arrived at that shore. They had set upon the lovely

city of Teuthras, and there, snorting fury with their horses, alike in their delusion, came in distress of

spirit. For they thought they were quickly mounting the high-gated city of Troy, but in vain were they

treading on wheat-bearing Mysia. And Heracles came to face (them), as he shouted to his brave-hearted

son Telephus, fierce and pitiless in cruel battle, who, inciting unfortunate flight in the Danaans, strove in

the front ranks on that occasion to gratify his father.'

Fr.2

'... run aground

... adze ... virtue ... cowardice ...'.

Notes on the New Readings ! ]....[ West2 suggests 'some case of porf, or more specifically: ]i pfoftv [. The multi-spectral image

(see Plate 1) shows a trace of the letter following the putative p (perhaps more suited to the tip of an

upright than to the lower left circle of omicron, but too little remains to be certain). por| is more usually found in the plural. If correct, the reference is presumably to the 'flow of events' or the 'tide of battle', rather than to the Kaikos or Scamander or any of the rivers mentioned by Archilochus.

2-4.1 offer a different punctuation from West2 of these lines. With the punctuation given there, the

beginning of line 4 should include an introductory particle. 4. If the co printed in the ed. pr. (the second letter of the line) is read as the left part of r| followed by

the left part of |x, as West2 suggests, then there is no trace of the next letter (see Plate 1); the following two letters after that appear to be T?, then a centred vertical stroke descending well below the line

suggesting d, cp, or \|/. This suggests nothing so much as 7c]r||Li[a]T(a) (with good parallels for the ills of

battle in early poetry: cf. Archil, fr. 26.6 W.) followed by ei>[. (I cannot account for what looks like a

superscript iota over |i; perhaps it was placed to indicate a long-vowel diphthong in error in the first

syllable of the line.) For the rest I have adopted West's new suggestion ?i|Li]?0(a), 'we hastened', followed by my original supplement ?[fji]a (see the ed. pr. on this line and on 23, where the

uncontracted form appears, for parallels). This leaves a letter or two of space unaccounted for between

?u and ?i|Li]?0a. But the verse cannot accommodate anything else: any more syllables here would be

extra-metrical. A blank space or dittography of ?D or ?i due to repeated syllables beginning with ?, for

example, could therefore be postulated as the cause. The adverb ?u would be well placed in this context,

suggesting that in certain cases the action of flight could be advisable, though disastrous or even

cowardly (24 Kaicf|v). The issue may be also under discussion in the poem in fr. 2, where ap?TTii seems

to be contrasted with K[a]K?TT|Toc (col. i 6-7). I have no objection to West's new proposal ap[r|]a.

(Apart from the rhythm, there are palaeographical difficulties with ai[\|/]a, namely in explaining why \|/ should start so high in the line after i, which would finish low; cf. \|/ after d in 20.) Reading p after ]?0a

will leave a blank letter-space in between; however, as noted in the ed. pr., the scribe occasionally does

so arbitrarily (see e.g. 20 dv|/itid ?ov). But I am unable to accommodate ap[r|]a to the beginning of the

verse. Another line of approach here, assuming a verb ending in -|n]?0a with a long syllable preceding, would be to look for a hortatory subjunctive in -

|i]?0a (as suggested in the ed. pr.).

6 D. Obbink

5. 'ApKa[ci?r)c, as West2 notes, is almost certainly the correct reading, confirmed as it is by Hes. fr.

165 ii T?K?] Tr|X?(pov Apraciorrv Mdccov ?aciArj[a, although in what sense the latter may be said to do

so is less clear, since the Hesiodic text is very likely to be later than Archilochus. The possible

supplement 'ApK?c[c ?c?v is put out of the question by the reading ?cov of West1 before Tr|A,?(poc.

'ApKaci?r|c, of course, as the ancient grammarians knew and as W. Burkert points out to me, does not

mean 'Arcadian' or 'son/descendant of Arkas' the eponymous forefather of the Arcadian people, but

'son of Arkasos'. Thus its occurrence in an early poem re-opens the debate over the question of whether

the Arcadian events of Telephus' story were ever originally connected with the Mysian series, including the battle with the Argives on the plain of the Kaikos, or whether they are two separate strands that were

artificially combined, namely in the retellings by the Attic tragedians.11 ApKaci?r|c also appears in

Hes. Cat. fr. 129. 17 and 22 (of Sthenoboea [Ko?prrv] 'ApKaci?a[o) and Callim. h. 2.15-16 ?kxak?v

ttjv, / Kot)pr|v Tacioio cdoktovov 'ApKaci?ao). The problem is noticed by the ancient grammarians: see Steph. Byz. s.v. 'ApKa?ia-... t? 7caTpa>VD|uiK?v 'ApKaci?ar <pei??v ovv 'ApKa?i?r|c. ?XX? ?i?

to KaK?cpcovov oincoc ?y?v?TO. ('Their [se. the Arcadians'] ancestral name is "Arkasidae". Now it ought to have been "Arkadides" [i.e. if it is from 'Apmc, -a?oe and means "descendant of Arkas"]. But on

account of the lack of euphony [i.e. in the name "Arkadides"] it came out like this [i.e as "Arkasides"].') This rationalizing explanation must go back to a discussion of the epithet by a Hellenistic proponent of

euphonic theory, in a debate over whether or not the epithet should mean 'descendant of Arkas', and as

such may well attest its occurrence in line 5 of the new poem. As noted above, the text of Archilochus'

elegiac poems was known to the ancient grammarians and lexicographers (Orion Etym. col. 55.22 Sturz,

and Et. Gen. s.v. emppricic) who cite from it. Knowledge of the text of our poem may also be recorded

in the grammatical tradition in the gloss of Ap. Soph, on //. 18.29 ?xrix??aTo- ??Umo?)VTO (cf. //. 17.

637, with v.l. -?aTo), which may confirm the restoration of the more rarely attested ocKr|X?[?aTO in line

19 over ?icr|x?[|i?voi. 6-7. West1"2 suggests o[i)?' ?y?vovTo] / a?,Ki|x[oi), while West2 offers an alternative based on a

suggestion of Luppe's: o[i ?' eX?Qovxo] / a?Kfj[c. But Archilochus would not have wished to deny that

the Argives were brave or powerful: this would have detracted from Telephus' heroic accomplishment in routing them, and extended by comparison to himself and his men in their own cirmumstances. o[i ??

(pe?ovTO, as I have supplemented, simply states the fact that they were forced to flee, as was the case.

This frees oc?ki|li[oi in 7 to be taken more pointedly with aixinriTai in 8 after the parenthesis, as in the

translation given above (whereas a?x|wr|Ta? 7C?p ?ovT?[c on its own is rather weak).

9. Kai [tce??ov was one of three supplements considered for the Oxyrhynchus edition (see n. ad

loa), and only became clear as the right supplement after West proposed M?ciov at the beginning of 10,

which (together with Pausanias' reference) confirms it - although it is the least obvious supplement,

requiring the assumption of a singular verb with plural subjects (schema Alcmanicum/Pindaricum).

16. 0[?v' (Janko) seems an appropriate description of the Mysian shore (presumably the estuary where the Greeks tried to land), given that we have been told in 10 that their ships were on the 0?va

7coAD(pAoic?oi[o Oataxccrjc. We are not to think that the only beach on the coast of Asia Minor was at

Troy: Archilochus may already be appropriating contemporary language used by other poets for Troy and transferring it to a narrative of the Mysian battle.

19. aKT|x?[SocTo: see above on 5 and app. crit. on 19.

21.1 offer a new reading and supplement ai]\|/a |i[?]TTiv ?' at the beginning of the line. See below,

n.21.

11 Against an original connection, see T. S. Scheer, Mythische Vorv?ter. Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im

Selbstverst?ndnis kleinasiatischer St?dte (Munich 1993), 71-94; M. Strauss, Fr?he Bilder des Kindes Telephos, Ist. Mitt. 40

(1990), 79-100 with Taf. 17, who rejects a connection Telephos-Telepinu, but suggests that -asos was a typical local Mysian

or east-Greek name-ending; cf. Arkasos, Pedasos, etc.

A New Archilochus Poem 1

25. The multi-spectral image confirms a new reading and supplement by G. B. D'Alessio for the

word before rcaTpi. See the text and app. crit. above on 25 and below, n. 19.

The text given above also differs from that of West2 in a few other minor details and choice of

supplements: see on 2,7,13,16,17, and 19.

Telephus was the son of Heracles and Auge, priestess of Athena Alea at Tegea in Arcadia, where he

was exposed as a baby, suckled by a hind, travelled to Mysia in the Troad where he was adopted by Teuthras and inherited his kingdom. In the middle stage of his career (before his wounding, wandering, and cure), he led the Mysians in opposing Argives when they mistakenly landed on Mysia in search of

Troy. There he distinguished himself in a battle in which he killed Polynices' son Thersander and

(according to Pausanias) many others. In a later stage of the same battle Telephus himself, while fleeing, was wounded by Achilles. According to an oracle, he could only be cured by the 'one wounding' (=

Achilles' spear), while the Argives could only find Troy 'with a Greek leading them' (= Arcadian-born

Telephus). The story of the battle was told already in the Cypria and the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (fr. 165

M.-W.),12 whence it passed into Pindar, plays by Aeschylus (frr. 238-40 Radt), Sophocles' Mysians,13

Euripides,14 and depicted in art.15 Later it was known to the Pergamene court poets of the Attalids;16

there was a cult of Telephus at Pergamon on Kaikos (Paus. 5. 13. 3, 3. 26. 10) and of Thersander at the

city of Elaea on the edge of the plain of the Kaikos (Paus. 9. 5.14).17

Now P. Oxy. LXIX 4708 offers a more personalised version of the incident. I think it will be clear

that in fr. 1 the poet is defending himself and his comrades for having taken to flight in a battle, and

pleading that sometimes this is unavoidable. The crucial parallel, as West notes, is Adesp. iamb. 38. 5

11 W. (see West's supplements in his apparatus criticus there), which now looks even more likely to be

by Archilochus. It is not necessary, of course, that Archilochus continued the story as far as Telephus'

wounding by Achilles. The narration proper may have ended at fr. 1. 25 (whether or not the poem itself

continued).18 At any rate oc|li[?]??ik[tov in 24 (recalling 11) and rcpojfiaxoc in 25 (cf. |i]o?)voc in 5) imply closure.19 The main point is the Achaeans' flight before him, and the Argives' and Telephus' heroism amidst varying fortunes.

According to the narrator of Philostratus' Heroicus (13. 4-14. 1, 23. 1, 23. 24) Telephus lost his

shield in the battle with Achilles. Given the obvious parallel with Archilochus fr. 5 W., in which the

12 F. G. Welcker, Der epische Cyclus (Bonn 1865) II. 136-41; U. v. Wilamowitz, Isyllos von Epidauros (Berlin 1886), 48; W. Kulimann, Die Quellen der Ilias, Hermes Einzelschriften 14 (Wiesbaden 1960), 189-203, 265-6; M. Hirschberger, Gunaik?n katalogos und Megalai ?hoiai. Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen, BzA 198 (Munich

and Leipzig 2004), fr. 72 pp. 122, 338-41. 13 A. Kiso, Sophocles, Aleadae: A Reconstruction, GRBS 17 (1976), 5-21. 14

Handley-Rea; F. Jouan, Euripide et les l?gendes des chants cypriens (Paris 1966); C. Preiser, Euripides: Telephos.

Einleitung, Text, Kommentar, Spudasmata 78 (Hildesheim 2000). 15

Including the Attic rf. calyx crater fr. Leningrad, Hermitage B 1843 (= ARV2 23,5, LIMC Diomedes I p. 389) of about 510 B.C., the west pediment of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, executed by the architect and sculptor Skopas of

Paros sometime before the middle of the 4th c, and later, on the Pergamene altar: C. Bauchhenss-Th?riedl, Der Mythos von

Telephos in der antiken Bildkunst, Beitr?ge zur Arch?ologie 3 (W?rzburg 1971), 37-74; J. Boardman et al., Griechische

Kunst (Munich 1966), 177 on the battle on the Kaikos plain. 16 Kullmann (above, n. 12), 106 n. 3, 141, following C. Robert, Die griechische Heldensage, III, 2, 1 (Berlin 1923),

1149ff.; Scheer (above, n. 11), 71-94.

17 A. D. Nock, Essays II. 578; E. Ohlemutz, Die Kulte und Heiligt?mer der G?tter in Pergamon (W?rzburg 1940), 165 n.123.

18 Frr. 2-8 contain language (where we can tell) susceptible to interpretation in other contexts, but which is also

consistent with the narration of the same episode as in fr. 1.

19 The new reading -xoc before rcaxpi in line 25 (see Plate 1) by G. B. D'Alessio slightly weakens the case for a fra

ming device here, but not much: 7ipo]uaxoc is but a variation on 5 ujo?voc.

8 D. Obbink

poet famously told of leaving behind his own shield in battle, it seems difficult not to see the new poem in conjunction with this and other Archilochean fragments (295(g), 88, 94, ?95) as a series of poems in

which the poet sang about defending - not always successfully

- his own country's soil or occupying another's.20 It might be objected, of course, that the loss of Telephus' shield (as in Philostratus) would

not have been seen as relevant to Archilochus' abandonment of his, since Telephus was stripped of it,

he did not discard it.

Archilochus may have nonetheless also alluded to Telephus' own flight (before his tripping by

Dionysus), by turn, even in the poem as we have it. This, I suggest, he did through his reference to

Mysia as jrupo?opoc in fr. 1. 21, 'grain-growing', rather than 'vine-clad' as it is called in Pindar's

description of this episode at /. 8. 49-50 M?ciov ?|i7i?A,??v . . . 7i??iov, namely, after Dionysus has

tripped up Telephus with his vine-shoot.21

What kind of poem was it? Not hymnic, like Simonides' elegiac poem on the Battle of Plataea (fr. 11 W.)22 with its elements of divine intervention. An extended mythical story, could it have been

unconnected to the history of a particular city, as some modern scholars have desiderated for early

elegy?23 But lines 4-5 (as the reconstruction above recommends) offer the mythical narrative as a

comparison to or reliving of the personal experience of flight in battle (like that related in Archilochus

in fr. 5 W., cf. fr. 139). Thus the mythological narration seems not to have existed for its own sake, but

as an exemplum or ainos.

In the standard version, e.g. as told in the Cypria (fr. 1 Bernab? from Proclus' Chrestomathy), the

Greeks lose their way en route to Troy and land on the Mysian coast. The Mysians drive the Greeks

back to their ships. Then Telephus is caused by a vine-shoot (= epiphany of Dionysus) to stumble, so

that he is wounded by Achilles; then the Greeks put to sea and are scattered by a storm. On this outline,

16-21 seem to take a step back in the narrative (or, rather, form a narrative frame with what precedes), and tell the story over again: 'The Achaeans were driven back with great slaughter to their ships: the

background to this is that they had lost their way, and had approached the city of Teuthras with warlike

ardour, since they were anxious to attack Troy, though in fact they were in Mysia.' Their 'distress of

spirit' described in 20 comes from being repulsed almost single-handedly in battle by Telephus, before

they have realised their mistake. 22ff. seems to continue with a crucial part of the battle. Their

confusion is the backdrop to Telephus' heroism. In this comedy of errors and worst-case-scenario of

20 A. Kerkhecker, Archilochus fr. 139 West: Another pixj/acmc-Poem?, ZPE 111 (1996), 26; G. I. C. Robertson,

Evaluative Language in Greek Lyric and Elegiac Poetry and Inscribed Epigram to the End of the Fifth Century B.C.E.

(D. Phil, thesis, Oxford 1999), ch. 2. 5 Right or Fight, pp. 64-71. Reworkings of one or more of Archilochus' versions are

Alcaeus fr. 428 V., Anacreon PMG 381(b), Hor. c. 2.7.8-10, and Epode 17. 21 Cf. Archil, fr. 5.1 rcap? Gauvooi. West's ingenious *K]a^i[y]^rjv

at the beginning of line 21 might advert to Diony

sus' miraculous growth. (However, the fourth letter appears from its return-loop to be a, not X: see Plate 1.) My suggestion

Ka]AXi[(p]\>r|v in the note to P. Oxy. LXIX 4708 fr. 1.21 must be regarded as an error (there is no visible sign of correction in

the papyrus), since the Ionic accusative would have been mA?Mpu?a or KaX?,i(pi)f| (cf. Adesp. iamb. 39. 9 W. e?epy?a).

Another possibility is to try to read a verb or an adverb at the beginning of the line, completing the previous construction,

and assume a new construction beginning with an adverb or yrjv ?' in 21. While this means 21 must begin with a runover

word (as do 7, a pentameter as here, and 10, a hexameter), rather than starting the balancing sentence with a new line (as do

the solutions of West and Luppe), the latter solution nevertheless would have the support of numerous parallels in which

TTupocp?poc modifies yn, and would allow the rare word Mvcic to function as an adjective, rather than as a noun or substantive

adjective modified by two separate epithets. A. R. 1. 348-9 ya?av / Muci?' ?vacxriceiv a?xocxeo?v gives an apposite

parallel. Anomalously high frequency among the early elegists of different types of enjambment between the hexameter and

pentameter had already been noted for Archilochus' previously known 10 elegiac examples by H. R. Barnes, The Structure

of the Elegiac Hexameter, in M. Fantuzzi and R. Pretagostini, Struttura e storia dell'Esametro Greco, vol. 1 (Rome 1995),

135-161 at 138^40 and 148 and n. 1, with resulting effects for the clause structure in the hexameter (pp. 144ff.).

22 For the hymnic form in early elegiac poetry see K. Bartol, Elementi innici nell'elegia greca arcaica e classica,

AJ.ON. 23 (2001), 9-37; D. Obbink, The Genre of Plataea: Generic Unity in the New Simonides, in D. Boedeker and D.

Sider (eds.), The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire (Oxford and New York 2001), 65-85.

23 E. L. Bowie, Ancestors of Historiography in Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The

Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford 2003), 45-66, especially 5 If., 59f., and 64 on Archilochus.

A New Archilochus Poem 9

warfare, the advent of Heracles in the poem helps explain why Telephus succeeded in turning back the

Greeks: he had outside help. The implied or foreshadowed advent of Dionysus in the form of the vine

shoot (which entangled Telephus, thus causing him to be wounded by Achilles) heralds Parian-Greek

victory and (viticulture in foreign places in the future, and helps explain at the symposium why some

times those who have conquered on one occasion will not necessarily do so in the future. The new poem can thus be seen to be a consolatio in epic diction and elegiac meter, framed and/or introduced by the

telling of a personal experience - the elegiac metre being associated with the personal and convivial -

and related to a type of religious poetry or 'aretalogy': an elaborated account of the manifestation of a

god or 'epiphany' (Heracles', ?Dionysus') that withstands comparison with the Dionysian iamboi that

narrated Archilochus' poetic investiture during his encounter with the Muses.24

That more than one account of Telephus' duel with Achilles was available at the time of the sub

epic poems is now apparent: not only in the Cypria (fr. 1 Bernab?) and Hesiod fr. 165 M.-W., but also

in a poem by Archilochus. This is especially brought out by a remarkable parallel between fr. 1. 9-10

[ti?O?ov] / M?ciov and 1. 21 ?' en?xeov Mi)ci?a, on the one hand, and Euripides' Telephus fr. 696. 16

N2-K. = 1. 16 Preiser ccpaT?c Ta Mdcc?v ti???' ?7t[i]cTpGxpa>v naxex (the reading of the papyrus accord

ing to H. Maehler, reported by Diggle and Preiser).25 Since Euripides is less likely to have drawn on a

poem of Archilochus (naxeiv is common in tragedy, in extant epic only at //. 4. 157) than on a lost epic

poem, this points to a common derivation from a poem (like the Cypria), or a common store of language for describing the Mysian battle, contemporary with and known to Archilochus.

Christ Church, Oxford Dirk Obbink

24 D. Clay, Archilochus Heros: The Cult of the Poets in the Greek Polis (Washington D.C. 2004). 25 Further discussion in M. Magnani, Eur. Fr. 696 K. (= 1 P., 102 A.), Annali deWUniversit? di Ferrara, Sezione

Lettere, N.S. 2 (2001), 35-46 with plate p. 46.