Chapter 13. Iambos

13§1. With the mention of Lukámbēs, we may now turn to the íamboi of Archilochus. [1] Of course, we are dealing here not so much with a metrical category but rather with a genre of composition: [2] "iambic metre got its name from being particularly characteristic of íamboi, not vice versa." [3] The word í-ambos, as K. J. Dover observes, seems to have referred originally to the type of occasion for which this genre was appropriate; [4] so also with the word dithúr-ambos. [5] The point is, Luk-ámbēs figures as a prime ekhthrós 'hateful one, enemy' of Archilochus.

13§2. By virtue of being singled out, even within epinician praise poetry, as ‘a man of psógos’ (ψογερὸν Ἀρχίλοχον: Pindar Pythian 2.55), the figure of Archilochus surely qualifies as a master of blame poetry. [6] Thus the íamboi composed against Lykambes qualify the poet as an ekhthrós to his victim. [7] Yet even an ekhthrós may have to deliver his poetry in the context of a receptive audience—who would have to be, by contrast, phíloi to him. In fact, Aristotle specifically identifies the audience of Archilochus as his phíloi: The audience of phíloi is also apparent in the Archilochean epode that begins as follows: In this particular instance, the target of reproach may have been the Kharí-lāos figure himself, whose very name suggests the notion of ‘mirth for the lāós’. [8] Nevertheless, Kharilaos remains the "most phílos of hetaîroi," presumably in the company of other phíloi hetaîroi.

13§3. Even if one of the phíloi hetaîroi were to be singled out for attack, the poetry of blame would not have to go far enough to rupture the philótēs. In the fragment concerning Kharilaos, we may infer as much from the promise τέρψεαι δ᾽ ἀκούων 'you will have pleasure hearing it' (Archilochus fr. 168.4W). [9] Furthermore, in another fragment from the same composition, we actually see a reaffirmation of philótēs: In societies where blame poetry was an inherited institution, there must have been clearly defined traditional limits for degrees of insult. {244|245} Consider the following description of the Spartan sussítia 'communal meals': [10] We may also compare the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (55–58), where playful ridicule at banquets is associated with the theme of ‘philótēs befitting hetaîroi’ (ἑταιρείῃ φιλότητι: verse 58). [13] At fr. 295d in his edition of archaic íamboi, Martin West gives a catalogue of fragments where various specific ‘amici’ [phíloi] may have been targets of reproach by Archilochus; perhaps it is significant that there is only one ‘inimicus’ [ekhthrós] attested, Lukámbēs himself!

13§4. As we look further at the figure of Lukámbēs, we must also consider more closely the poetic conventions of the íambos. Clearly, the primary function of the Archilochean Iambos was blame poetry, and the primary target of this poetry was Lykambes and his {245|246} daughters. On this point, the testimony of the ancient world is unambiguous, and I need cite only the most familiar reference, Horace Epistle 1.19.23–25. [14] With the appearance of the Cologne Epode (Pap.Colon. 7511), [15] we now have, for the first time, an extensive text about this family, made so infamous by the invectives of Archilochus. [16] The rest of the direct textual evidence about Lykambes and the Lykambides is so deficient that we have the greatest difficulties in reconstructing the overall structure of any other Archilochean composition from any of the attested fragments and excerpts. Even so, the bits and pieces at our disposal have led us to certain expectations, and the Cologne Epode now leaves us perhaps surprised at the nature of its blame poetry. Instead of railing at the family of Lykambes directly, the poem places them inside a narrative. The immediate victim of the narrative is a daughter of Lykambes, [17] who herself is not addressed directly but in quotations within the narrative. Within the overall structure of this composition, direct address happens only in quotations from the daughter and from the narrator. These in turn are not only opened but also closed with expressions inherited for precisely the function of framing dialogue:

Table

In this connection, I refer to Führer's monograph about the mechanics of direct quotation in "lyric" (in the sense of "non-epic"), with its ample documentation on the traditional nature of such framing expressions and on their strict interrelation with the quotations. [18] {246|247}

13§5. Moreover, the inherited mechanics of direct quotation in epic are structurally parallel to those of lyric, the Iambos included. [19] They are in fact stricter, in that overt quote frames for dialogues (type προσέφη, προσεφώνεε, etc.) and for speeches (type μετέφη, μετεφώνεε, etc.) are de rigueur in Epos. [20] Conversely, the quote frames in a genre like the Iambos are only optional—a point to which we will have to return presently. But the point now is simply that the quote frames are indeed present in the Cologne Epode, so that the dialogue between the persona of the seducer and that of Lykambes' daughter—as we see it in this particular example of the Iambos—meets the strictest formal requirements of epic quotation. The essential difference between Epos and Iambos here can be seen from the standpoint of narration: whereas the epic narrative that frames dialogues is in the third person, the framing narrative of the Cologne Epode is in the first person—which coincides with the persona of the seducer.

13§6. 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? [21] If we choose the second alternative, then the function of blame poetry is a cause; if we choose the first, then it is merely an effect. There are also other consequences that accompany our choice. 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. For example, those ancient commentators who took a biographical approach to Archilochean poetry were upset to read in the poet's own words that his mother was a slave-woman, called Enīpṓ (Critias fr. 88 B 44DK, Aelian Varia Historia 10.13; see Archilochus fr. 295W). And yet, this very detail reflects on the function of Archilochean poetry, in that Enīpṓ is derived from a word used in Epos to designate 'blame', enīpḗ (as at Odyssey xx 266). [22] {247|248}

13§7. In this connection, I return to the argument that even the prime target of Archilochean blame poetry, Lukámbēs himself, is a stock character whose name is connected with the very notion of íambos. [23] Moreover, if indeed one of the original contexts of the í-ambos was Dionysiac in nature, [24] we may compare West's collection of thematic evidence about Luk-ámbēs with the tradition that Dionysus was persecuted by Lukó-orgos, wielder of the bouplḗx 'cattle prod' (Iliad VI 130–140). [25] Be that as it may, the traditional form of iambic blame poetry—as we can see from the fragments of Hipponax and Semonides beside those of Archilochus—is replete with a great variety of stock situations and stock characters. [26]

13§8. Further, K. J. Dover raises the possibility that the poet can even assume the persona of a stock figure like Charon the carpenter (Archilochus fr. 19W) or the father reproaching his daughter (Archilochus fr. 122W). [27] In these two cases, however, we may not have to go that far. Although lyric in general allows the occasional assumption by the composer of a persona that is overtly distinct from his own self (e.g., Alcaeus fr. 10LP), [28] the specific genre of Iambos may perhaps be more strict. At least, the Archilochean poems about Charon and about the father-to-daughter reproach are inconclusive, since their endings have not survived. They may both have ended with a quote frame even though they began without one. The effect may have been an amusing surprise. [29] The suppression of the quoting mechanism till the very end of the composition is a comic device well known to us from Horace Epode 2. [30] {248|249}

13§9. The point remains, then, that Archilochean blame poetry against Lykambes and his daughters is a stylized poetic form, with strict formal regulation of narrative and of dialogue quoted within the narrative; also, that the personification of the composer and that of his targets is similarly stylized within the narrative and dialogue. As Aristotle says in the Rhetoric (1418b23–31), such personifications as in Archilochus fr. 19 and 122W (both of which he actually cites) [31] are an example of how the poet composed blame poetry: καὶ ὡς Ἀρχίλοχος ψέγει 'and as Archilochus reproaches [makes psógos]'. The evidence of the Cologne Epode serves as an invaluable confirmation for what we can also infer from the other fragments: the Archilochean íamboi against Lukámbēs and family, with their stylized themes and characters, are as universal in content as they are ad hoc.

13§10. We are left with the more fundamental problem of examining the traditional function of this Hellenic form of blame poetry, the Iambos. Looking forward in time, beyond Archilochus, we see a medium kindred to Archilochean íamboi in the complex poetic form of the Athenian kōmōidíā 'comedy', which in turn must be compared with its less sophisticated counterparts in other city-states. I leave the details of exposition to Martin West and others, [32] confining myself here to stressing what Pickard-Cambridge had proved long ago—that the traditional notion of kōmōidíā was derived from kômos 'revel, celebration, celebrating group of singers/dancers'. [33] In the kômos we see the social origins of comedy, a medium of blame poetry that has the capacity of being applied on the universal or ad hoc level. [34] In other words, the blame poetry that we may find in kōmōidíā is by origin an extension of a social function that is associated with the kômos. This connection helps explain an aetiological story about sixth-century Naxos, as reported in Aristotle's Constitution of the Naxians (fr. 558 Rose, as directly quoted by Athenaeus 348b–c). On that island, which is hours away from Paros, the traditional home of Archilochus, a group of young men made a kômos to the house of an eminent citizen after a drinking party; they insulted him and his two marriageable daughters, and the ensuing {249|250} riot led to the emergence of the tyrant Lygdamis. [35] We have here a theme where the kômos actually affects the social order, in a context that connotes blame poetry.

13§11. Looking backwards in time beyond Archilochus, we see from the comparative evidence of other Indo-European civilizations that the blame poetry of the Archilochean Iambos has an inherited converse in the institution of praise poetry. [36] From the standpoint of their heritage, the psógoi 'reproaches' of an Archilochus are thematically the converse of the épainoi 'praises' of a Pindar. Actually, in Pindar's own words, praise and blame are two sides of the same thing: Even on the level of form, we may observe in general that the dactylo-epitrites of epinician praise poetry are comprised of metrical elements that are cognate with those used to build the epodes of Archilochean íamboi. [38] Most important of all, both blame and praise poetry have a common social context in the institution of the kômos. This convergence can be instantly and most dramatically illustrated by simply citing the formation of two words: kōmōidíā 'comedy' [39] and enkṓmion 'encomium'. [40]

13§12. In the very language of epinician praise poetry, it is the "Dorian" kômos (as it is called in Pindar Pythian 8.20) that serves as the context for celebrating the victor with aînos 'praise'. [41] Conversely, in the blame poetry of Archilochus, the same word aînos designates the use of animal fables (fr. 174.1, 185.1W), [42] the basic themes of which would have been appropriate for performance by a khorós 'song/ dance group' comprised of "animals" in some formal analogue of kōmōidíā. [43] {250|251}

13§13. In short, the íamboi of Archilochus against Lukámbēs and his daughters are a special case of blame poetry. The insults are against an ekhthrós, not a phílos. Nevertheless, they are in all likelihood framed for a general audience of receptive phíloi, whose social outlook may well have resembled that of the famous Naxian kômos mentioned by Aristotle. At least, the transmission of Archilochean poetry at Paros suggests that his blame poetry was not against the social outlook of the local state that helped preserve this poetry. [44] Whether we view the audience of Archilochus as the immediate phíloi or, teleologically, as the social order that helped preserve and propagate Archilochean íamboi, the point remains that such poetry is an affirmation of philótēs in the community. If indeed these íamboi are intended for the phíloi as audience, then a direct approach to Lykambes is poetically unnecessary. If the insults aimed at Lykambes are for the entertainment of the phíloi, then the device of a first-person narrative about Lykambes and his daughters is appropriate and effective.

13§14. As a discourse that has the capacity of telling about its subjects without necessarily speaking to them, the blame poetry of Archilochus is farther from the praise poetry of Pindar and closer to the epic poetry of Homer. As a correlate to this distinction, we may note that the subjects of Archilochean blame seem to be stock characters, [45] whereas the immediate subjects of Pindaric praise are of course historical figures. Moreover, we have seen that there is a narrative frame for the direct speeches of blame in the poetry of Archilochus, which in this respect too is farther away from a Pindaric and closer to a Homeric model. In the poetry of Pindar, there is no narrative frame for the poet's direct speech of praise. On the other hand, the Cologne Papyrus has revealed that the direct speeches of Archilochean poetry can be framed within a first-person narrative. In this respect, {251|252} Archilochus is farther away from epic and closer to comedy. In terms of comedy, the equivalent of the first-person narrator would be a character interacting with other characters; most appropriately, this character would be assumed by the first actor, who was originally the poet himself. [46] {252|}