¹ Some examples: Rankin, H., “The new Archilochus and some Archilochean questions’, QUCC 28 (1978) 7–27Google Scholar; Nagy, G., Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979)Google Scholar; Carey, C., ‘Archilochus and Lycambes’, CQ 36 (1986) 60–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Sickle, J., ‘Praise and blame for a “full commentary” on Archilochus’ first epode’, BICS 36 (1989) 104–8Google Scholar; Slings, S., ‘The I in personal archaic lyric: an introduction,’ in Slings, S. (ed.), The Poet's I in Archaic Greek Lyric (Amsterdam 1990) 1–30Google Scholar.

² As Nagy, G. has recently referred to him, Poetry as Performance (Cambridge 1995) 219Google Scholar.

³ Dover, K., ‘The poetry of Archilochus’, Fond. Hardt 10 (1964) 181–212Google Scholar.

⁴ Dover (n.3) 211-2 (italics are mine).

⁵ R. Merkelbach ‘Epilog des einen der Herausgeber’ 113 (my translation), added to Merkelbach, R. and West, M., ‘Ein Archilochos Papyros”, ZPE 14 (1974) 97–112Google Scholar.

⁶ West asks, ‘Who, when he meditates upon that mysterious group of words, Iambos, Dithyrambos, Thriambos, Ithymbos, can feel entirely sure that Lycambes was a real person?’, West, M.L., ‘Archilochus ludens: epilogue of the other editor’, ZPE 16 (1975) 217–19Google Scholar, reiterating the position presented in Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus (Berlin 1974) 23–30Google Scholar.

⁷ Nagy, G., ‘Iambos: typologies of invective and praise’, Arethusa 9 (1976), 191–205Google Scholar. Rewritten as Ch. 13 of Best (n.1).

⁸ Fairweather, J., ‘Fiction in the biographies of ancient writers ’,Ancient Society 5 (1974) 234–255Google Scholar; Lefkowitz, M., The Lives of the Greek Poets (London 1981)Google Scholar. See also Lefkowitz, , ‘Fictions in literary biography: the new poem and the Archilochus legend’, Arethusa 9 (1976) 181–9Google Scholar. Fairweather's discussion precedes the particular flurry of activity on Archilochus which arose in the mid-seventies, and as a result is thorough and cautionary rather than reductive as are some later discussions.

⁹ Forrest, W.G., ‘Euboea and the islands’, in The Cambridge Ancient History 3.3 (Cambridge 1982) 255Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Cf. n. 1.

¹¹ Bowie, E.L., ‘Lies, fiction, and slander in early Greek poetry’, in Gill, C. and Wiseman, T.P. (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Exeter 1993) 1–37 (esp. 33-5)Google Scholar.

¹² Although some work has been done in this direction: Bonanno, M., ‘Nomi e soprannomi archilochei’, MH 37 (1980) 65–88Google Scholar investigates the possibility of nicknames in Archilochus.

¹³ Carey (n.1) 63, esp. n. 19 responds in detail to their arguments. Such a possibility also puts a different spin on Nagy's work on genre. For example, Nagy, Best (n.1) 247 posits a stark dichotomy: ‘Shall we say, then, that this persona is Archilochus, whose actions determined the narrative of this iambic composition? Or rather, shall we say that the function of the composition determined the narrative, which in turn determined the persona that acts and speaks within? The first alternative leads us to approach Archilochean poems as biographical documents, and we then find ourselves taking the same attitude as most of the ancient commentaries that have survived … The second alternative leads us to ask whether the details and essentials about the persona of the composer are to be derived from his role as composer of blame poetry’. But certainly, one can occupy a middle ground and speculate on how the ‘function of the composition’ can determine how ‘actual’ experience, people or events, may be ‘recreated’ in song or for performance.

¹⁴ See most recently Nagy, Poetry (n.2) 218. For ancient discussion on comedy's debt to iambos see Arist. Poetics 1448b32-1449a6; for modern discussion see Rosen, R., Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition (Atlanta 1988)Google Scholar. For views which acknowledge the simultaneous presence in Old Comedy of fictional and historical characters as relevant to discussions of the characters of iambos see Bonanno (n.12) and the brief comment of Rankin (n.1) 13.

¹⁵ Van Sickle (n.1) 105. Rankin commented to little avail on this tendency (n.1) 8: ‘This attitude, in short, concedes to the formal “structure” of iambus, and to the social and ritual context in which it is supposed to have performed a much greater share of importance than the contents themselves are allowed to possess’.

¹⁶ Nagy, Best (n.1) 235-41 and passim.

¹⁷ Carey (n.1) 61.

¹⁸ Bowie (n.11) 35 n.44.

¹⁹ All references to Archilochus’ poetry are based on West, M., Iambi et Elegi Graeci 1 (Oxford 1971)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Carey (n.1) 61

²¹ Origen c. Celsum 2.21; Dio Chrys. 74.16. See Carey's (n.1) comprehensive discussion regarding the consistency of the story and its characters as related in the ancient sources.

²² See especially AP 7. 69-71, 351-2; Horace Epod. 6. 11-3 with scholia ad loc, P. Dublin 193a, Eust. in Od. 1684.45. See West (n.19) 15 (ad frr. 30-87) and 63-4 (ad frr. 172-81) for a collection of testimony involving the Lycambids.

²³ Slings (n.1) 25 and Carey (n.1) 62-3, esp. n. 14, for comments on the intricacy of the invective in SLG 478.

²⁴ That marriage implies children or the potential for children is attested in the story of the wife of Itaphernes as recorded in Hdt. 3. 119, and in Soph. Antigone 909-10. There are conversely numerous examples where the status of one's marriage is held to be confirmed or questioned by the presence or absence of children. See, for instance, Aesch. Ag. 877-8, Lysias 1.6-7, Hdt. 1.61.1-2. I thank the anonymous referee for discussion of this point.

²⁵ Cf. WD 701 and Carey's discussion of the marriage theme in the Cologne Epode (1986) 62.

²⁶ West, 's translation (Greek Lyric Poetry [Oxford 1993] 4)Google Scholar and reading which he supports primarily with the scholia to Aristophanes’ Peace, 1078: ή κύων σπεύδουσα τυϕλά τίκτει (‘The bitch in haste bears blind pups’), (n.19) 77a. The expression is of course metaphorical and perhaps, even at this date, proverbial, but the choice of imagery is not fortuitous in the context of this poem. Cf. Carey (n.1) 62.

²⁷ AP 7.351 and 352; West (n.19) 15.

²⁸ More so than the epigrams on Archilochus (AP 7. 69-71) which are by far more general.

²⁹ Given the amount of poetry that the Hellenistic epigrammatists had at their disposal and the sophistication with which poetry was read, we should expect intricate play in several other epigrams for poets. Such play is obvious in the epigram for Pindar (AP 7.34), but the ease of detecting such allusion in the epigram for a poet is of course related to the amount of his/her poetry which survives. Along another line, Callimachus’ use of the iambographic genre, including the ainos as in la. 4, would no doubt reveal interesting play and manipulation of his Archaic predecessors’ use of the genre, particularly of the ainos and its relationship to its frame. A comprehensive study of both these topics is, however, outside the scope of the present discussion. For discussion of Callimachean iambics see most recently Hunter, R., ‘(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme’, PCPS 43 (1997) 41–52Google Scholar (with bibliography). For a discussion of Callimachus’ ainos of the olive and laurel, la. 4, see dayman, D., ‘Callimachus’ Fourth Iamb’, CJ 74 (1978) 142–8Google Scholar.

³⁰ For the inscriptions of Mnesiepes (the Elitas inscriptions, SEG xv 517) and Sosthenes (Monumentum Archilochi, SEG xv 518) see Tarditi, , Archilochus (Rome 1968) 4–11Google Scholar. On the Mnesiepes inscription see N.M. Kondoleon, Arch. Eph. 1952, 32-95; ‘Archilochos und Paros’, Fond. Hardt 10 (1964) 39–54.Google ScholarCf. also Bull. Epig. 1955, 178 and Treu, M., Archilochos (Munich 1959) 152–4Google Scholar.

³¹ For Archilochus’ special status with Delphi, see the Mnesiepes inscription, Plut. Sera Num. Vind. 17, Heracleides Pol. 8 (FGrH 2.214), Dio Chrys. 33. 12, AP 7.664 (Leonidas). For his status in Paros, see the Mnesiepes inscription, Arist. Rh. 1398b and Kontoleon (n. 28). For Archilochus as patriotic hero, see both the Sosthenes and Mnesiepes inscriptions and Graham, A.J., “The foundation of Thasos’, BSA 73 (1978) 61–98 (esp. 83-4)Google Scholar, Lefkowitz (n.8) 31.

³² West (n.19) cites these epigrams prior to frr. 30-87W, fragments which he places under the heading ‘De Lycambae filiabus’, thus indicating his belief that they relate to the content of Archilochus’ poetry. Gow, A.S.F. and Page, D.L., The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic epigrams 2 (Cambridge 1965) 249Google Scholar, quoted below.

³³ LSJ s.v. ϕλύω II. Archilochus fr. 45W - κύψαντες ύβριν άθρόην άπέϕλυσαν (‘They stooped and spurted off all their accumulated wantonness’ (West's translation, Greek (n.28)). άπεϕλοσαν cod. but emended by Schleusner, Curae Noviss. ad Phot. (1812) 161, and accepted by modern editors, primarily on the basis of this epigram and Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica 3.583 which seems dependent on this line: άλεγεινὴν / ϋβριν άποϕλύξωσιν ὺπέρβια μηχανόω–ντες (‘so that those who laid insolent schemes would be made to splutter out their wretched presumption’, Hunter, R.'s translation, Jason and the Golden Fleece (Oxford 1993)Google Scholar). While fr. 45W is not at all certainly about Neoboule, it is still worth asking whether this line of Apollonius’, the conclusion of Aeetes threat to destroy the Argo after Jason is slaughtered by the oxen, however briefly, is meant to evoke some parallelism between Jason, Medea, Aeetes and his hetairoi and Archilochus, Neoboule, Lycambes and Archilochus’ presumable audience of philoi hetairoi.

ϕλύω may serve several functions. In addition to both operating with its metaphorical meaning, and referring to a word used by the poet, it may refer to sexual scenes in Archilochus like the conclusion of SLG 478, making a double entendre which draws an analogy, or rather blurs the distinction, between the metaphorical and literal uses of the word, drawing a parallelism between the acts which Archilochus describes himself as performing and the poetry/language with which he describes it. This parallelism is important because the two are interconnected in the account and are together responsible for the supposed/reported deaths of these young women, and such parallelism may in fact be responding to Archilochus’ own formulation.

³⁴ For example, Campbell, D.A., Greek Lyric Poetry (2nd ed., Bristol 1982) 162Google Scholar.

³⁵ Although separated by some lines, they must be connected, for otherwise the ainos of the hawk and nightingale becomes a tale encouraging basileis with the abuses they can perform, free from retribution.

³⁶ The affinity of Archilochus and Hesiod in their use of ainoi is implicit in Schol. T. Horn Il. 19.407 in which their fables about the eagle and hawk respectively are grouped together. Furthermore, ainoi appear to have been a feature of Archilochean poetry, see frr. 185-7W.

³⁷ Perry, B., Aesopica (Urbana 1952) 321. West (n.19) 65Google Scholar includes the fable from Perry's edition but omits the conclusion.

³⁸ WD 207.

³⁹ The close link argued here between the ainoi of Hesiod and Archilochus may have significant consequences for the much-debated possible relationship between the poets’ Dichterweihen, which I hope to explore further elsewhere. For discussion about the possible links between the poets’ Dichterweihen, see Müller, C.W. ‘Die Archilochoslegende’, RhM 128 (1985) 99–151Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ It may be thought that to depict, even within an ainos, the killing of children, drastic in its finality, as the revenge for the deprivation of potential children represents so great an incommensurability between the revenge and the initial insult as to render this interpretation problematic on these grounds. This point can be addressed on two levels. Taking into account cultural factors, I would agree with Carey ((n.1) 67 n.31) that the breaking of a marriage, whether in a constructed fiction or in reality, would constitute ‘a public affront’, to which the requital of reciprocal public humiliation was expected, if not by our standards appropriate. Addressing the consequences to the portrayal of the poet's persona which this interpretation introduces, I find no problem, given antiquity's assessment of Archilochus’ poetry, in having the poet represent himself thus. Critias reportedly censured Archilochus for speaking κάκιστα about himself (Ael. VH 10.13). Likewise, Horace (AP 79, Ep. 1. 19), Ovid (Ib. 53), and an epigram of Gaetulicus (AP 1.71), among others, testify in vivid terms to the severity of the poet's invective and his poetic persona.

⁴¹ fr. 172W.3-4

⁴² Cf. n.8.

⁴³ It could be argued that, if one accepts the interpretation advanced here, the ainos may imply not the metaphorical deaths of the Lycambids, but, as in the case of Archilochus, the destruction of their potential offspring through the damage to their marriage prospects which such poetry as SLG 478 could have had the ability to effect (whether actually or within the constructed fiction of their story). Such a view supports my interpretation of this ainos as evoking potential children on Archilochus’ part, extending this to the Lycambids as well. This view is also not in disagreement with the suggestion posited here that the misconstrual of this ainos may have introduced the suicides into the tradition. The choice between these views—the metaphorical deaths of the children of the Lycambes, or the destruction of the potential offspring of the Lycambids—is difficult to make. I have argued for the former on the basis of the address of the ainos to Lycambes and the ‘neatness’ of the parallelism between the two ‘fathers’, Archilochus and Lycambes, and the fates of their ‘children’, but this alternative offers another ‘neat’ parallelism of reciprocal destruction of potential offspring and could likewise easily follow from the interpretation argued in this article.

⁴⁴ In this scenario it is not necessary to think that a broken marriage-agreement was the sole, primary, or even the literal cause for grievance with the figure known as Lycambes. It may, for instance, be a metaphor for some other kind of treachery, or have a synecdochal connection to a larger betrayal by that figure.

⁴⁵ Slings (n.1) 16.